AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Garnex fines quashed

13th April 1989, Page 20
13th April 1989
Page 20
Page 20, 13th April 1989 — Garnex fines quashed
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?

• Fines imposed on Garnex, trading as C J Stanley, and one of its drivers, for overloading offences were quashed at Bolton Crown Court, following evidence from a customer that his staff were at fault.

Rochdale magistrates had fined the company £150 for a 7.3% gross overload, and £200 for a 10.2% second-axle overload, and driver Arthur Brassington £75 for each offence, The Rochdale general manager of Amoa Chemical Co, Norman Wilby, told the Court that the offences resulted from an error by his company's staff in filling bottles with a litre of fluid instead of 0.75 litre. The mistake would nut have been noticeable as the bottles were dark in colour and the people concerned had since been disciplined.

Defending, John Backhouse said Garnex had not been previously convicted of overloading and it had never previously experienced any difficulties with the loads it had carried on behalf of Amoa Chemicals.

He referred to the High Court case of Hart vs Bex, and various Crown Court decisions, which indicated that where defendants were morally guiltless of absolute liability offences like overloading, an absolute discharge was approriate.

Dropping the fines in favour of absolute discharges, and ordering that the defendants' appeal costs be paid out of public funds, Judge Proctor said he was satisfied that the circumstances of the case were exceptional. The customer had, unusually, been prepared to give evidence that it was entirely to blame for the offences.

He was satisfied that neither Brassington nor his employers could have had any reason to suspect that the vehicle concerned might be overloaded.


comments powered by Disqus