AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Records Appeal Allowed

16th February 1962
Page 29
Page 29, 16th February 1962 — Records Appeal Allowed
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?

A PROSECUTION appeal against the Pi dismissal by Camberley (Surrey) magistrates of four summonses against All Wheel Drive, . Ltd., of Camberley, was allowed in London last Friday by

the Divisional Court. The summonses had alleged that the firm permitted four of their drivers to drive continuously for more than five and a half hours.

The Lord Chief Justice (Lord Parker), s:tting With Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr, Justice Fenton Atkinson, ordered that the -case should go back to the magistrates with a direction that they were wrong in their decision.

As it was not clear whether there had been a submission of "No case to answer," or the defence had elected to call no evidence, it was for the Justices to decide what course to take.

Lord Parker, taking one of the summonses as an example, said that on January 4, 1961, a driver named Moth left Camberley at 7 a.m. with a lorry laden with a tractor. He arrived at London Docks at 9 a.m. and had an interval of rest from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. He then picked up another load, left London at 7 p.m. and arrived back at Camberley at 10 p.m.

The respondents never gave evidence and the facts were taken from the driver's records. The Justices, said Lord Parker, had said about Moth that, though he appeared to have been working from 3 p.m. to 10 p.m., he had had opportunity for rest and might have rested.

The records were admissible evidence against the employer and the driver who kept them. What was contained in them was, though not conclusive, prima facie evidence of the truth. It was always open to the employer who was prosecuted to call the driver to explain that the record kept was wrong. Accordingly, the Justices had admitted the records.

Lord Parker said that what had apparently happened was that the Justices had said there was no evidence that Moth and the other men had been driving all the time and had thought they had had ample opportunity for rest.

"1 am satisfied that the Justices were not entitled, in the absence of any evidence, to take that view," said Lord Parker. "The only interval of rest set out in the case of Moth is from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and the period from 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. is recorded as work. Whatever suspicions the Justices may have had, 1 am satisfied that it was prima facie evidence of driving during that period."

Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson agreed.

Tags

Organisations: Divisional Court
Locations: Surrey, London

comments powered by Disqus