AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Magistrates have rejected defence arguments that tachograph records should not

19th October 2000
Page 19
Page 19, 19th October 2000 — Magistrates have rejected defence arguments that tachograph records should not
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?

be used to prove that a speed limiter is inoperative. Liverpool stipendiary magistrate David Tapp dismissed claims by the defence that John Owens, the driver in question, had neither been asked to confirm that the charts were his, nor that he had been driving on the occasions in question.

John Hinchcliffe, for the defence, argued that in this case it was inappropriate that the charts should be used as evidence.

However, Tapp maintained that Owens had at no time denied that the charts were his, despite having had the opportunity to do so.

Owens, a former Transfreight Services driver, had pleaded not guilty to seven offences of using a vehicle without a working speed limiter but was convicted. Giving Owens a two-year conditional discharge, Tapp said he was aware of Owens' limited means. He hoped that a conditional discharge would remind Owens that it was important the speed limiter was operational on any vehicle which he drove, as this rule existed for no safety purposes.

Traffic examiner Geoffrey Whitley said II the tachograph charts for 18 Transfreight drive had been looked at during the investigation. I had shown Owens his tachograph charts, telli him that in his view they showed evidence speed limiter offences.

An examination of the vehicle driven Owens revealed that the seal in the fuse box h been broken and that a lamp fuse had be inserted instead of a 15amp fuse.

Hinchcliffe pointed out tt Owens was not told he coi examine the charts, nor ask if they were his.

Hinchaffe argued that the was nothing beyond the Ow made out in his name to comic Owens with the vehicle on t dates in question. He ma tamed that the charts we inadmissible, as the charg had been brought under t 1988 Road Traffic Act and r the 1968 Transport Act.

Prosecuting for the Vehi+ Inspectorate, John Heat argued that tachograph chai were admissible evidence any type of offence committ by a driver.

Tapp said Owens had r denied that he had driven 1 vehicle and he had been aware problems with the speed limit


comments powered by Disqus