Three fined in test case row
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Birmingham City Magistrates got tough on three hauliers and two drivers last week, fining them more than E7,000 on a controversial interpretation on the working of the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations. The court threw out the case for the defence which argued that it was wrong to issue a series of summons from one particular overloading offence.
The drivers concerned, John Walton and James Gordon, and the three operators, Nock Construction, Longcroft Transport Services and Travel-Gas (Midlands), are all considering appealing against the penalties imposed and the point of law involved in the decision.
Geoffrey Davies, defending, said that it was a fundamental principle of English law that a person could not be convicted twice for the same offence. He told the court that it was wrong for the defendants, having already admitted they were guilty of gross overloads, to be charged with a new set of alleged offences under exactly the same sub-section within the Construction and Use Regulations.
Davies referred specifically to Regulation 80(a) of the 1986 C and U legislation, which states that an offence is committed if any of the weights shown on the plates are exceeded. This wording differs greatly from the 1973 and 1978 Regulations said Davies, in that they specifically created separate offences for exceeding gross weight limits and each individual axle weight. It is a characteristic of the 1986 C and U Regulations that an operator with five or six brake defects is only charged with one offence. He is definitely not charged with five or six offences, said Davies.
For the prosecution, Trevor Faber referred the Court to the appeal case of J Theobald (Hounslow) versus Stacey, when Lord Widgery rejected the case that it was oppressive to charge separate overloading offences arising out of the same set of circumstances.
In reply, Davies pointed out that the decision had been against the background of the previous regulations. He maintained that it did not apply to the 1986 Regulations, because of a change in wording.
Travel-Gas (Midlands) of Bigbeth was fined 2650 with £150 costs for a gross overload of 8.75% and a rear-axle overload of 15.75%. Driver John Walton was fined .2450 with £150 costs.
Longcroft Transport Services of Royston was fined .21,500 with E150 costs for a gross overload of 33.26%; a front-axle overload of 17.1%, and a rear-axle overload of 38.7%.
Nock Construction of Solihull, was fined E2,000 with E150 costs for a front-axle overload of 19.7%; a rear-axle overload of 59.2%, and a gross overload of 59.4%. Driver James Gordon was fined £1,700 with £150 costs.