-le forged certificate le didn't need
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Said by prosecuting counsel to be the it case of its kind which had come to the rice of the vehicle Licensing Authorities, cause the regulations under which it was ought had only come into force this year, oceedings were heard at Middlesex Area ssions last week under the hgv drivers ensing regulations.
John Paul William kixon, of Rockswell cad, Shepherds Bush, admitted two -fences of uttering a forged document, irporting to be a certificate of his driving cperience, knowing it to be forged, on ebruary 2 and March 4, and to two Tences for having, on the same dates, lowingly made a false statement that hween August 4, 1969, and February 2, )70, he was employed by Dodd's ransport (Acton) Ltd, and was in the habit ' driving heavy goods vehicles.
"The essence of the prosecution case is at Rixon, by lying as to his driving :perience, and by using a forged certificate, irporting to be signed by his employer, led to persuade the Licensing Authority to • ant him a heavy goods vehicle licence aitling him to drive the heaviest types of lorry," said Mr K. FI. T. Schiemann, prosecuting.
Under the Act, the defendant did not require a heavy goods licence until January 1971. The only possible reason for his application—since he could not deceive his own employer—was that he might have been intending to move to another job.
Mr N. A. Khan, defending, said that there was no need for the defendant to obtain a heavy goods licence until January next year, and he could drive the vehicles he was required to drive on the licence which he now held. He was not intending to take up any other employment which involved driving Class I and Class II vehicles. He had had a certificate signed by his employer, but it was destroyed by his little girl. He got another certificate but was embarrassed at having to go back to his employer again. He filled up the form himself.
"He does not understand why he did it, because he was not intending to change his job" said Mr Khan. "He appreciates that he has made a mistake."
Defendant was fined £5 on each count, a total of £20, and was ordered to pay £15 • towards the costs of the prosecution.