1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238 
Licence Endorsement Appeal Rejected
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Road Haulage Association-spon sored appeal by Mr. K. P. Venables of Enfield, against a sentence imposed by .Lawford Gates magistrates, of a £10 fine with a subsequent endorsement of his personal driving licence, was dismissed with costs by the Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee on Wednesday. The question of whether or not the matter should go forward to the Divisional Court is being considered.
Mr. G. Hamilton, for the respondent, said that after an accident in the county involving one of Mr. Venables' vehicles, he pleaded guilty to a charge of using a vehicle with braking systems which were not maintained in efficient working order. Mr. Hamilton then gave details of the brake wear found.
After Venables had given evidence of the instructions given to drivers on reporting defects and of his methods for regularly maintaining his fleet, and testifying that the driver involved had not reported any defect in the brakes after he had taken the vehicle out on the day of the accident, Mr. R. M. Yorke —briefed by the R.H.A.—.said that the matter was a serious one affecting all road haulage operators.
Mr. Yorke said that since the 1962 Road Traffic Act had come into effect disqualification had been made one of the principal weapons in magistrates' courts. He submitted that in passing the Act. Parliament was concerned with getting off the road for increasingly long periods and finally automatically, people who, when they were on the road, were in some way a danger to others. But, Mr. Yorke added, special reasons existed where the convicted person, though legally liable, was morally blameless.
There was a distinction between
" causing and permitting" a vehicle 10 be on a road in an unsafe condition where the owner must have some knowledge and had either done nothing or shut his eyes to what was going on, and " using " a vehicle on the road. Since 1957, when the Divisional Court had decided that the owner was absolutely liable for " use " and not "causing or permitting", owners were charged with " using " vehicles on a road, because the prosecution did not have to establish if the employer knew anything about the matter or not.
Mr. Yorke submitted that operators charged with using vehicles contrary to the law should be given the right to establish that special circumstances existed why they should not have their licences endorsed and their attention should be drawn to this before conviction.
On the facts of the case, Mr. Yorke concluded, where there have been no previous conviction and nothing had been wrong with the vehicle when it started on its journey, there was sufficient justification in saying that the appellant had established there were special reasons for not having his licence endorsed.
Giving judgment, the deputy chairman of the sessions, Mr. A. C. Bulger, said he saw no reason for interfering with the magistrates' decision. He was entirely satisfied that the defect had not developed on the one single journey. The appellant's own inspection was not sufficiently efficient and special reasons had not been established for not endorsing the licence.
(A full account of the argument in this case will be given shortly in "Licensing Casebook ".)