1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
Legal Opinions on Drivers' Records
Page 86
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Case Dismissed in the High Court
ALEGAL decision, stated to reveal another hardship on owners of lorries, was unsuccessfully 'challenged in a King's Bench 'Divisional Court, last Friday. H. Cdx and Sons, Ltd., appealed against the decision of a London magistrate that it had contravened regulation 5 of the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations, 1934.
The company had been charged with failing to keep, or causing to be kept, a true record of the load carried by one of its lorries. It appeared that about midday on October 15 last year the driver of a lorry was asked to' produce his records and the form showed that the lorry carried about 6 tons, when, as a matter of fact, the load was 2 tons greater. The employer was thereupon charged with an offence, the allegation being that the concern had failed to keep, orcaused to be kept, a true record. The magistrate fined the employer El and 2 guineas costs.
Mr. David Karmel (for H. Cox and D28 Sons, Ltd.) said it would be a great hardship if the employer were held to be liable in such a case as this. The company had provided the man with the proper form on which to keep records and the form on which the examiners found the errors was not handed to the employers until later in the day. • Lord Hewart said the section provided imperatively that the holder of the licence shall keep or cause to be kept, the proper record.
Mr. Hamel: "But the employer can do no more than give the man the proper form with the order to fill it in."
Lord Hewart: " We all know the sort of law which makes hard cases. The driver has a duty and the owner has to see that he does it. We cannot alter this imperative Statute."
Giving judgment, dismissing the appeal with costs, Lord Hewart said the case was a plain one. What the appellant did was to provide a form to be filled in. That was not enough and the contention before the magistrate in support of the complaint was the correct one, viz., that the form which was filled in was not accurately completed and mess rea on the employer's part need not be established.
Not to be Used in • Prosecutions?
ADDRESSING the Liverpool section of the Institute of Transport, on October 25, Mr. M. R. Fletcher Rogers, a Liverpool barrister, stated that, at first sight, the section of the 1933 Act dealing with the keeping of records, would appear to compel an A or Blicence holder to keep and produce records over six months, which might incriminate him. His own view was, however, that the section did not override the ancient common-law right that no man was compelled to answer a question or produce a document which might haVe a tendency to incriminate him.
The speaker regarded the section as one intended to be used only before the Licensing Authority for the purpose of record as to whether or not a licence was to be renewed or revoked, and that it was not designed for policecourt purposes.