AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Hours charges withdrawn • Aldershot magistrates ordered the defence costs

25th June 1998, Page 26
25th June 1998
Page 26
Page 26, 25th June 1998 — Hours charges withdrawn • Aldershot magistrates ordered the defence costs
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

of Tadley, Hantsbased John Stacey & Sons to be paid out of public funds after the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew allegations that the company had permitted a series of drivers' hours offences by one of its drivers.

Prosecuting, Maureen Truss said that a vehicle belonging to the company, and driven by Arthur Watmore, had been stopped in a routine check. An examination of his tachograph charts showed long periods of continuous driving without the required breaks.

However, Chris Butterfield, defending, had shown the procedures that the company had in place for ensuring compliance with the drivers' hours regulations, including the regular analysis of tachograph charts by an outside agency. Truss was satisfied that no case could be made out against the company for permitting the apparent offences.

Butterfield had also put to her that many of the journeys shown on the charts were off the public roads. She could not know how much of Watmore's driving had been off-road, so she proposed to withdraw the summonses against Watmore for alleged hours offences.

However, as the tachograph charts contained no indication that the journeys were off the public road, she felt it right to continue with the four charges against Watmore for failing to use the tachograph in accordance with the regulations.

Butterfield said these were Watmore's first offences in more than 45 years' driving. There had been up to 12 movements a day on and off the public roads, so the omissions were understandable.

The magistrates fined Watmore a total of £200.