Judge Suggests Indictment Against Operator
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER hearing that the rear brakes of a lorry which collided with a car at Tamworth killing six people were in
"disgraceful condition", Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones at Stafford Assizes today said he thought a bill of indictment should be prepared against the lorry's owners and the company's transport manaeer.
The lorry driver, John Brown (28), of Willow Wand Cottage, Burton Joyce, Notts, pleaded guilty to causing the death , of six people—two adults and four 1 children—by driving in a manner dangerous to the public. 14e was fined £25 and banned from driving for 10 years. '
Mr. M. Pratt, prosecuting, said that a car had pulled up on the crown of the road waiting to make a right hand turn into a farm entrance when Brown camel on the scene in a lorry. The lorry drove straight into the back of the car.
When seen by the police Brown, who was dreadfully distressed, said his brakes had failed and that he had known the brakes on the hack were poor before he started out on his journey that morning.• Mr. Pratt said the brake system had been tested and all the brake drums were removed and the shoes examined. "They were found to be in a disgraceful condition. The rear brake dnim shoe was found in parts to have no brake lining left at all. In other parts it was worn right down to the rivets."
Mr. Stephen Brown, defending, said Brown was placed in an impossible position for an employee. He had not been with the company very long and had done his best to see that something should be done to the brakes.
Before sentencing Brown, the judge commented that some explanation from the employers, F.M.C. (Nottingham) Ltd.. was called for, An investigation should not be left to summary proceedings.
"F shall not direct a voluntary bill; hut I invite the prosecution to consider whether or not to apply for a bill of indictment here. I further think, on what 1 have been told, the indictment he prepared against the company and against the transport manager as an individual."
The judge said that he bore in mind that the employers and the transport to Imager were not present and he had not heard what they had to say.