AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Errors found in summonses

25th November 1993
Page 15
Page 15, 25th November 1993 — Errors found in summonses
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?

• Heavy haulier GCS Johnson (Skeeby) and one of its drivers have been cleared of allegedly using a dangerous vehicle by Hendon magistrates.

The company and driver Gordon Braithwaite denied using a Daf articulated tractor and Nicolas Special Types trailer when part of the braking mechanism and the steering mechanism was defective.

The court was told that a police officer on patrol on the M1 saw the vehicle apparently "snaking", with the steering trailer moving between the hard shoulder and the second lane. The vehicle was directed to a service area, where the police officer discovered that one of the steering arms of the trailer was worn.

Vehicle examiner Drew Norris said that he had imposed an immediate prohibition after examining the vehicle at the request of the police. Some of the brake chambers were loose. Two of the brake lines were bent backwards and wired, making it impossible for air to pass through.

Questioned by Jonathan Lawton, defending, Drew agreed the vehicle had not been given a rolling road brake test. He was not able to say there was no braking efficiency, or what the braking efficiency reading would have been. He had not noted any problem with the steering mechanism.

Lawton argued that the summonses in relation to the alleged brake offence had been wrongly drafted, in that they referred to S41 (A)(B) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. There was no such sub section. Two new sections had been introduced by the Act, S41A and S41B, the first of which related to brakes.

Ile pointed out that in relation to the alleged steering offence, the company and driver had been charged with using a "Daf artic swan neck". If it was suggested that that identified the tractor unit, the alleged offence was in respect of the trailer. It had been held by the High Court that S40A created separate offences in relation to the tractor unit and trailer.

In dismissing the charges. the magistrates directed that defence costs be paid out of public funds.


comments powered by Disqus