AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Three Bow Bells charges dismissed, one upheld

14th August 1970, Page 19
14th August 1970
Page 19
Page 19, 14th August 1970 — Three Bow Bells charges dismissed, one upheld
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?

• Less than a month after Bow Bells Deliveries Ltd and its associated company, Bow Bells Transport Ltd, had been fined nearly £400 by Wells Street magistrates for plating and testing offences (CM July 24) Bow Bells Deliveries was fined £25 on Tuesday at the same court, for causing or permitting a driver to drive without the required intervals of rest. The driver, Mr Leonard Graves, was fined £5.

Another similar charge against the company and two charges of failing to cause current records to be kept, were dismissed. A charge against a second driver, Mr James Arundel, alleging he had failed to keep current records, was also dismissed.

The magistrates also refused the prosecution's application to award costs and witnesses' expenses against the company.

The case took more than four hours to complete, commencing on Friday afternoon.

Opening for the prosecution, Mr Robin Campbell said he would attempt to prove that a vehicle that was supposed to have been driven by the two defendant drivers from Goole to London and back, between the hours of 1 a.m. and midnight on November 5 had in fact been at the British Railways'

Continental goods yard at Hither Green between 8.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. "If that can be proved, the drivers' records cannot be right," he said.

Five witnesses were called by the prosecution. Three were employed by BR at Hither Green and the other two were MoT traffic examiners.

Mr S. F. Burston, the BR gatekeeper at Hither Green, said his record book showed that a Bow Bells' vehicle, registration number KYL 503, had arrived at the depot at 8.30 a.m. and left at 6.30 p.m. on November 5.

When cross-examined by Mr J. Harkness, defending the company, who said that the registration number of the vehicle in question was in fact •KYL 503D, Mr Burston said that was possible because he had only recently been told to include any registration suffixes.

Two other BR witnesses said they had been involved in loading and checking the vehicle in the goods yard at Hither Green on November 5 and supporting documents were submitted in evidence.

Mr Harold Parken, a Metropolitan area traffic examiner, said he had carried out an

continued on page 28


comments powered by Disqus