AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Brothers condemned by their own pens

21st November 1969
Page 34
Page 34, 21st November 1969 — Brothers condemned by their own pens
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?

Keywords : Truck, Law / Crime

• Ignorance of the law and an administrative muddle were said to be the main reasons for the appearance of two brothers before Frome magistrates last week on a number of offences in connection with their haulage business.

Mr. A. K. Baldwin admitted making a false declaration to obtain an excise licence for a lorry and three further charges of using a lorry with no excise licence.

Mr. Baldwin, with his brother, Mr. T. M. Baldwin, trading as Baldwin Bros., of Nunney, also admitted contravening regulations in respect of an A licence and a further charge of contravening regulations relating to a B licence, The brothers also pleaded guilty to 37 charges of using a lorry for the carriage of goods without a carrier's licence. They further admitted carrying goods on four occasions when not covered by their B licence.

They were fined a total of £121 with £15 costs and ordered to pay £103 1 Os back duty in respect of the excise licence.

Mr. Roger Stokes, prosecuting for Somerset County Council and the Western LA, said the offences came to light as a result of investigations instituted by the LA.

He said it was plain the offences had not been disguised by the defendents, although they were many in number but clumsy in execution.

The summonses relating to contravention of regulations in respect of the A licence. said Mr. Stokes, resulted from an application for a temporary substitution licence. This had been made although the vehicle in question was still in use. He said the regulations made it abundantly clear that one could not apply for a substitution licence unless a vehicle was withdrawn, under repair or had been destroyed.

Thirty-seven charges were brought after it was discovered that one vehicle was being used on the road without any carrier's licence at all.

"In fact the position is that this vehicle was first authorized under a public A licence on May 20. The dates which appear on the records indicated that the vehicle was operated from April 1, right through to May 19 until the vehicle was licensed on May 20," he said.

Mr. Stokes said the four offences arising Out of contravention of their "B" licence came to light when they carried coke and scrap metal. The licence conditions were: "Quarry materials within a radius of 150 miles."

Mr. Michael MacGregor-Johnson, appearing for the brothers, said Mr. A. K. Baldwin accepted responsibility for all the matters, not only for summonses against him personally, but also for the joint charges with his brother. He had been responsible for the administration.

Mr. MacGregor-Johnson said the brothers operated five vehicles. What was blatantly clear was that the wrong vehicles were being used for the work and there was a certain amount of "jumping the gun" for a vehicle subsequently licensed.

He said the details of the offences were available to the LA by the records the brothers kept. He asked the court to accept that the offences mainly resulted from ignorance of the law, the regulations and an administrative muddle.

The keeping of records had meant they were condemned by their own pens. They had made no attempt to get out of the mess they found themselves in and co-operated fully with the investigators.

Referring to summonses relating to the carriage of goods with no excise licence, Mr. MacGregor-Johnson said there was little or no excuse. It was a question of using vehicles not taxed.

Tags

Organisations: Somerset County Council

comments powered by Disqus