Defence of separate units
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Darlington
based haulier W&M, and truck driver Ernest Byrne, were cleared of an overloading offence following defence arguments that an articulated outfit consisted of two separate vehicles.
The company and Byrne were originally charged with overloading the compensating axles of a vehicle, but Penrith magistrates allowed the charge to be amended to overloading the compensating axles of a trailer.
Prosecuting for the Department of Transport, Michael Fisher said that an artic driven by Byrne and carrying potash was checked at the Harker dynamic axle weighbridge on the A74. The three compensating axles of the trailer were found to be overloaded by 1,550kg (7%).
Defending, Paul Williams said that the statements of evidence produced did not support the charge. The prosecution seemed to be regarding the articulated outfit as one vehicle instead of two separate vehicles, namely a unit and a trailer.
In his statement the traffic examiner had said that the vehicle was carrying potash, not the trailer. He had also stated that the vehicle was displaying a plating certificate showing the permitted weight of the compensating axles. The vehicle was not displaying any such plate.
Fisher argued that the defence were playing with words: when the traffic examiner said "vehicle" he clearly meant the drawing unit and trailer together. "The trailer was not going anywhere on its own," said Fisher. It was attached to the drawing unit and it was overloaded.
Williams pointed out that the prohibition notice issued recorded the weights in the vehicle axle weights column—not the trailer axle weights column. These were two separate vehicles, he said, and the prosecution had to refer to which of them was causing the offence. Therefore the evidence was inaccurate.
The magistrates refused to make any order as to costs; they felt the defence had rested on a technicality.