Magistrates lottery
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ust following up on the article "Lawyers slam courts.' (CM
14-20 August), I thought you and your readers might be interested in the following illustrations of how magistrates differ in the verdicts they reach.
I am currently acting for a company which was prosecuted for a tachograph being out of calibration. It missed the sixyear recalibration and the proprietor entered a guilty plea by post and put forward mitigation, including the fact that the tachograph was in all respects recording properly.
Nevertheless, Stevenage magistrates court imposed a financial penalty of £1,200 on 18 July. The client tried to deal with the summons himself and ended up with a particularly hefty fine. I am currently attending to an appeal for that client.
Contrast that with another matter I handled for a different company relating to an insecure, allegedly dangerous load. It related to paper blowing off the top of a vehicle. I was able to persuade the prosecution to alter the charge against the driver from "causing danger" to "causing nuisance".
I was then able to persuade the prosecution to alter the charge against the company on the basis that the driver would plead guilty I then called the driver to give evidence.
The magistrates were satisfied the driver took all reasonable precautions in securing his load and consequently imposed no penalty. It just goes to show what can be achieved with proper legal representathm.
These are just a couple of illustrations that show the variance. There are plenty of similar stories. Anton Balkitis
Rotheras Solicitors, Nottingham.