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 
Soft drinks are not fruit and veg.
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The chairman of Gravesend magistrates, Mr. Wilfred Hammond, said on Friday that in the absence of specific B licence conditions the bench would have to interpret those existing as ''what they would mean to a reasonable man". For this reason, he said, the plea by Garmere Transport Ltd., of Pinner, Middlesex, that it was within its rights to carry soft fruit drinks when its licence was conditioned "fruit and vegetables within 20 miles" would not be accepted.
The magistrates found Garmere guilty on two charges of using a goods vehicle contrary to Section 164 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and imposed fines totalling £10.
Garmere, whose B licence was revoked recently by Mr. W. M. Levitt, the deputy Metropolitan LA {CM, December 5), also pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to produce current drivers' records and was fined a further £10. Costs of £25 and witnesses expenses of £4 were also imposed.
In delivering the decision, the magistrates' chairman said it would make matters a lot clearer to all concerned if the conditions of a licence were more specific. "If it meant 'fresh fruit' it should say so-, he said.
Miss Caroline Alton, prosecuting on behalf of the MoT, said that on two occasions this year a Garmere vehicle, sub-contracted to J. and H. Transport Ltd., of London, SE8, delivered goods for Cadbury-Schweppes Ltd., from its Sidcup depot.
On June 3, she said, a load of Suncrush was taken to Canterbury and on June 4 a load of Pepsi Cola to Harrow. "How could you ever describe Suncrush or Pepsi Cola as fruit and vegetables?" she asked.
Mr. G. Simden, a Metropolitan traffic examiner, said that inquiries were started because of evidence he received relating to the two journeys. Inquiries were made to Mr. Paul Clark, a transport consultant acting for Garmere at that time, but he did not reply, said Mr. Simden, who went on to say that a visit was paid to Mr. Hawkins, who was understood to be operating the vehicles. On being asked for the relevant records, Mr. Hawkins said that they had been handed to Mr. Clark and added that he thought the application to vary the Garmere licence by extending its radius to 200 miles had been granted. When the offence was pointed out to him Mr. Hawkins had said: "You have stopped the variation and now you are going to put me off the road".
Mr. David Bush, a director, admitted in evidence that, prior to becoming a director of Garmere, he was employed by the MoT as a licensing clerk in the Metropolitan LA's office. He claimed the company's licence conditions were specific and that he was able to carry anything which constituted fruit and vegetables. He said fruit was still fruit whether it was in a crate, box, can or a bottle.
[Mr. Hawkins told "Commercial Motor" this week that he was not, and had never been, a shareholder in Garmere Transport Ltd. or a director of the company. He further stated that he had never been involved in obstructing Ministry of Transport traffic examiners in the execution of their duty, as might be inferred from a statement reported in CM last week)