AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Brick load hauled by contractor was not illegal

2nd November 1973
Page 28
Page 28, 2nd November 1973 — Brick load hauled by contractor was not illegal
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?

• Farmer Richard Locker was not breaking the law when he allowed a load of bricks to be hauled by a farm tractor licensed only as agricultural machinery, three High Court judges ruled last week. The Queen's Bench Divisional Court rejected a police appeal against the dismissal by magistrates sitting at Huntingdon of summonses under the excise regulations.

Normally a tractor licensed as agricultural machinery at an annual £5 fee can transport only agricultural materials, said Mr Justice May, sitting with Lord Widgery (Lord Chief Justice) and Mr Justice Bridge.

If it is used on public roads to haul other goods, duty must be paid at a higher rate.

But when Mr Locker needed bricks at his farm for pipeworks to irrigate his fields, he came within an exception to the rules.

Mr Locker was entitled to allow the contractor's son to fetch the bricks in his tractor so long as the bricks were being used for work on the farm, said the judge. That being so, the magistrates, sitting on November 29 last year, were right to dismiss summonses alleging that the contractor, Mr Frank Robert Picking, and his son, Robert, had infringed the excise regulations.

They also cleared Mr Locker of an allegation of aiding and abetting them.

Mr Locker and the two Pickings were awarded costs of the hearing out of public funds.


comments powered by Disqus