'The mdllstry appears to categorise magistrates as middle-class twits'
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
or the past seven years I have been privileged to be the director of the Institute of Transport Administration and since 1986 I have sat on the Southampton Bench as a lay magistrate. Following a long career in the Services, I came into the transport industry with no preconceived ideas about the way it should, or should not function; but I find myself being mildly irritated by occasional utterances and correspondence complaining at the way magistrates deal with defendants from the road haulage industry.
On one side we ha those who maintain that magistrate.are far too lenient in the fines they irk -Ise and on the other there are those wht. contend that magistrates impose fines without reference to the evidence and in any case do not understand the problems faced by the haulage industry.
It should be noted that the maximum fine for each offence of overloading a commercial vehicle is £2,000; tachograph offences carry a maximum of 21,000 each. Neither of these types of offences is endorsable. Assuming the offences are proved, then the bench will treat overloading or tachograph cases in the same way they would other offences.
They will consider the seriousness of the offence, mitigation, any previous convictions and the means of the defendant. The bench will also have "guidelines" to assist them in determining the level of fine to be imposed.
The defendant's circumstances will be carefully considered against the gravity of the offence and his ability to pay the fine will be an important consideration in arriving at the final amount. Magistrates apply the same yardstick for traffic offences as they do for other offences, many of which are far more serious.
However, when the occasion demands, magistrates will not shirk their responsibility to impose heavy sentences. The point must also be made that the incidence of offences such as overloading and tachograph irregularities is very small and constitutes only a tiny fraction of the average magistrate's case-load.
I cannot agree with the general view that magistrates do not understand the problems of the haulier and are unsympathetic towards the lorry driver. Professional legal advice is immediately available to the bench from the magistrates' clerk and in any case, compared with some other offences, the majority of road traffic offences are relatively straightforward. I sat recently with two magistrates on a case involving tachograph irregularities. I took my copy of Croners with me, but the prosecution produced greatly enlarged photocopies of the offending tachograph charts and was able to demonstrate with the utmost clarity the evidence supporting the charges.
More fundamentally, the road haulage industry and some of its legal advisers appear to categorise magistrates as middle-class twits incapable of grasping the facts of any case and being biased against the lorry. This view is wrong on both counts.
I have heard the proposal that specialist tribunals should be established to deal only with traffic offences as if this type of offence was somehow special. I can see no justification for setting up special traffic courts.
I can appreciate that concern exists over disparities in sentencing. After allowing for the individual facts that relate to each and every offence a wide variation in the sentence awarded for identical offences in different parts of the country is unsatisfactory and could generate resentment and distrust of the legal system.
I hope I have gone some way towards convincing readers that when dealing with all forms of traffic offences, magistrates remain dedicated, impartial and fair. y