AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Question of Jurisdiction' LA

5th September 1969
Page 26
Page 26, 5th September 1969 — 'Question of Jurisdiction' LA
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?

• Although an operator had been convicted for offences relating to forgery of drivers' records and unauthorized use of a vehicle, Mr. J. C. Samuel-Gibbon, Western LA, said at a Cheltenham public inquiry on Wednesday that S.178 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, gave him no jurisdiction to issue a direction.

The case before him concerned Mr. K. G. Boulton, of Whiteshill, Gloucestershire.

Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said Mr. Boulton had been convicted at Stroud of forging a driver's record and for nine charges of unauthorized use. The case was similar, he said, to an appeal in Scotland when Miss Kidd QC, had contended that forgery of this kind was a common law complaint. It did not come within the provisions of S.178 II).

Mr. Samuel-Gibbon said, however, that in England it would be a statutory offence to utter false documents with intent to deceive. He said that S.14 of the Forgery Act would apply in this respect.

The offence was not set out in the 14th schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, but Section 236 did relate to the issue of false documents. Mr. Samuel-Gibbon ruled that in all the "bundle of offences" there was nothing relating to the offences committed by Mr. Boulton.

''My view is that the offence is not within the 14th schedule,said Mr. Samuel-Gibbon "and at present I do not think I have jurisdiction in respect of some offences relating to

drivers' records."• With regard to the offences of unauthorized use of a vehicle, he said: "I find again it is not a matter I can take into account under Section 178."

No direction would be given, said the LA.

Dealing with the application for a variation of conditions on a B licence held by Mr. Boulton the LA said: "When I consider his application I am bound to consider his conduct as a carrier. It would make a mockery of procedure if I were to grant his application unopposed."

He rejected the application on the dual grounds of non-appearance at the inquiry and previous conduct.


comments powered by Disqus