know the law
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge, AMIRTE, MIMI
Forgery and false statements (2)
LAST WEEK I discussed the falsification of records of hours worked and of the register. Before going on to other aspects of Use statements it must be mentioned that where an employer and his driving staff come to an agreement to break the law concerning hours of work, let us say by making false entries so that the records only show permitted hours whereas, in fact, much longer hours are being worked, then both the employer and the drivers could be charged with conspiracy.
Conspiracy is the crime committed when two or more persons combine together to execute some act for the purpose of injuring some third person or the public. The essence of the crime is an agreement by two or more persons to do some unlawful act. In the case of hours of work it would be held that by working excessive hours the public would be put in danger by reason of the fatigue of the drivers. Unless a third person is charged with the offenders a husband and wife cannot be jointly charged with the crime as the law regards them as one person.
In R v Blameres Transport Services (1964) I Q.B 278 a haulage company and its managing director were charged on indictment with conspiracy with other persons to cause, order or permit and encourage the company's drivers to make false records in purported compliance with the regulations and the indictment was upheld on appeal. Since this case several successful prosecutions of a similar nature have been brought. Any transport manager or foreman in on "the fiddle" could be jointly charged with the other miscreants.
Returning to the making of false statements, Section 235 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 makes it an offence to make a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the grant of any licence granted under the Act. This would include driving licences, psv (vehicle) and road service licences, psv driver's and conductor's licences. A similar provision comes later in the same section in respect of insurance certificates.
The question of whether gain or advantage is derived from making a false statement is immaterial in considering whether an offence has been committed under this section. (Jones v Meatyard (1939) 1 All ER 140.) In this case the defendant registered and licensed his car in the name of a non-existent person and for the purpose of paying a lower insurance rate, gave a false address. He was found guilty of making a false statement to obtain an insurance certificate.
A person who answers any question incorrectly on a driving licence application form or insurance proposal form may commit this offence. For example, if one is suffering from any disability mentioned on the driving licence application form and in answer , to the question concerning this disability it is not disclosed, then an offence is committed. Similarly, in connection with insurance if a question concerning previous convictions is not correctly answered then this would amount to a false statement and one would be liable to a penalty, in this case of £.100 fine and four months' imprisonment.
I had practical experience of one of these cases some years ago when a young epileptic, despite the pleas of his parents, applied for and obtained a driving licence by falsely answering the question on the application form "Do you suffer from epilepsy?" In this particular case, because of extenuating circumstances, a very small penalty was imposed. Incidentally, the law concerning drivers who suffer from epilepsy has been changed by the Motor Vehicle (Driving Licence) Regulations 1970, presumably because of the improved drugs to control the disease which are now available.
If an epileptic can satisfy the following conditions then he will not be barred from holding a licence:—
(a) he shall have been free from an epileptic attack while awake for at least three years from the date when the licence is to have effect; (b) in the case of an applicant who has had such attacks in his sleep during the previous three years he shall have been subject to such attacks while asleep but not while awake since before the beginning of that period; (c) the driving of a vehicle by him is not likely to be a source of danger to the public. This concession does not apply to the hgv driver's licence.
Returning to the subject of forgery, an interesting case was heard at Leicester Assizes in 1958. A man, who was the holder of a driving licence, had impersonated his brother at a driving test. He signed the examiner's journal and the certificate of competency which he gained in his brother's name. He was found guilty of forging these two documents and also uttering a forged certificate to obtain a Licence. (R v Potter 1958 2A11 ER 51.) From this discussion of the law concerning forgery and false statements it is abundantly clear that any deviation from the strict truth, where traffic documents are concerned, will, if discovered, be severely punished.