AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

CM helps a driver to prove his innocence

15th February 2007
Page 6
Page 6, 15th February 2007 — CM helps a driver to prove his innocence
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?

CM HAS succeeded in having a driver's prosecution reconsidered with the likelihood that his conviction will be overturned.

Stephen McFarlane of Mablethorpe, Lincs, formerly a driver for Tilbury's DJV Transport, had been summonsed as the registered owner of a Scania following an unspecified"incident". He wrote to the court several times,stating that he was the driver but not the owner of the vehicle.

In January he was convicted in his absence of being the legal owner and failing to notify the court of the driver's identity. McFarlane was fined £320 and his licence was endorsed with three points.

McFarlane was granted leave to appeal but his wife. Jane, says: "To appeal costs us two days' work and a hotel in London."

CM contacted Vosa, the DVLA and Highbury Corner Magistrate's Court,establishing that McFarlane was not the owner or the keeper of the vehicle, which was specified on the licence of DJV Transport.

Mark Ostrow-ski, senior legal adviser at Highbury Magistrate's Court, examined the file and discovered a document DJV Transport had returned to police in January 2006 nominating McFarlane as the driver. This means the prosecution should never have been brought.

Ostrowski has now put the case before the prosecuting authority; it has been rescheduled for March to see if the conviction should be set aside. Meanwhile enforcement of the fine will be put on hold.

McFarlane says: "The police can cheek who the owner of a vehicle is so easily —how can a mistake like this happen?"


comments powered by Disqus