Utilecon Not Lim ited to 30 m.p.h.
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
E think that this is a ease that
should never have been brought.said Mr. Harold Williams, Q.C., deputy chairman of Middlesex Sessions Appeals Committee, on Tuesday, when they allowed an appeal by Ronald Allan Harvey, 1 Wentworth Hill Gardens, Mill Hill East, against a conviction by Hendon magistrates for driving a van at over 30 m.p.h.
The conviction and fine of £2, with licence endorsed, were quashed. and Harvey was awarded £15 15s, costs. Appellant had claimed that the van he had been driving, a Thames Utilecon,
was a dual-purpose vehicle and not restricted to 30 m.p.h.
Mr. John Leonard, for the police, said that two police traffic officers followed the van for 0.3 mile at 45-48 m.p.h. When stopped, Harvey said that his company, Blue Star Garages, Ltd., had told him the vehicle was not restricted.
P.C. Perry said there were two passengers in the van. One was sitting on a cushion at the rear. There was no seat visible at the back of the van.
Harvey, in evidence, did not dispute that he was travelling at more than 30 m.p.h. A passenger was sitting on a seat at the rear of the van. This seat was permanently fitted, and could be folded into the floor.
After the -court had adjourned to examine the vehicle, the deputy chairman said that the committee were satisfied that the van was permanently fitted with a seat in the back.
"In the circumstances it is in our opinion quite clear that this is what is described in the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations. 1955, as a dual-purpose vehicle," he said