VI attacked over 'blatantly poor' speeding evidence
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CM EXCLUSIVE II by Cliff Caswell
A road haulage consultant has launched a broadside against enforcement bosses this week amid claims that sub-standard evidence is being used at traffic hearings.
Doug Sturman insists drivers are being called before Traffic Commissioners on submissions that would be ruled inadmissible by crown and magistrates' courts. He is concerned that the evidence is simply being accepted without being scrutinised.
"I think drivers need to get somebody to look at it rather than accept it. My personal view is that because these matters could come before a court of law, the same level of proof should be required," he says.
Sturman, a former policeman who now works for Jireh Training & Specialist Services, spoke after representing a driver who had had his HGV licence suspended. Ray Nicholson (49) of Felixstowe had been called to a hearing to answer allegations of speeding and using a truck without an Operator's Licence. A suspension was imposed in his absence after he failed to turn up.
But at another driver conduct hearing in Cambridge this week, the suspension on Nicholson's licence was lifted after Vehicle Inspectorate evidence was discounted. He received a formal warning.
Eastern Area TC Geoffrey Simms heard how the vehicle, allegedly driven by Nicholson, was calculated to have been speeding between fixed points.
But Sturman insisted this was case, saying the figures had not been added up correctly. In fact, he argued, they showed the truck's average speed was within the legal limit of 50mph.
He was critical of the way the evidence had been gathered, saying no tachograph evidence to show the speed of the vehicle had been provided, and the driver on that day had not been positively identified.
Sturman told the hearing: "This is a blatantly poor piece of evidence. There is obvi not the ously a flaw in the system. I am concernec the evidence does not hold water."
He insisted that evidence which did r satisfy the basic "balance of probabilitiE test had been allowed to go before the 1 Representing the VI, Richard Mutirr admitted that the driver of the truck had r been seen. He also told the hearing he h not received tachographs giving the spe of the vehicle. A VI spokeswoman later sa 'We have repeatedly asked for tachogra charts to be provided in this case."