Load case collapses over code
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The defence costs of Hertsbased Bradmill Meat are to be paid out of public funds after Epping magistrates cleared the company of three alleged overloading charges.
The company had denied overloading a two-axled rigid by 2,580kg (34%); overloading the first axle by 380kg (11%); and overloading the second axle by 890kg (15%).
It admitted missing a two-year tachograph calibration check, for which it was fined £240 with £40 costs.
PC Falconer of the Essex police said he had noticed the vehicle last July because it appeared to be overloaded. He directed it to the dynamic axle weighbridge at Junction 7 on the M11 and issued the driver with an Essex police weight certificate. The weighbridge had been turned on and calibrated before the weight check and he was satisfied that the computer was working properly.
Replying to Jonathan Lawton, defending, Falconer agreed that the calibration had simply involved passing an electrical current through the mechanism.
He believed that the weigh bridge had been tested but said he had not been present when the tests were carried out Falconer agreed that though the certificate of weight produced to the court bore his signature, and was dated 19 July, the certificate given to the driver had not been signed and dated by him. He told the court that he had signed the certificate at the end of his shift and agreed that the Essex police certificate of weight was different to that laid down in the regulations. Lawton said the Code of Practice made it clear that a certificate of weight must follow the style contained in the schedule to the regulations.
In any event, he added, an unsigned document could not be a certificate. In such circumstances the prosecution had to prove the accuracy of the weighbridge, which in this case they clearly were unable to do.