AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

BLAMIRES' APPEAL DISMISSED

26th July 1963, Page 9
26th July 1963
Page 9
Page 9, 26th July 1963 — BLAMIRES' APPEAL DISMISSED
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?

Court of Criminal Appeal last rweek dismissed appeals by a Preston haulage company and its managing director against conviction at Lancaster Assizes on February 21 of conspiracy to contravene the Road Traffic Act in relation to drivers' hours of work.

Blamires Transport Services Ltd., New Longton, near Preston, had been ordered to pay prosecution costs not exceeding £2,000 .and Mr. Winston Blarnire, 50, of New Longton, was fined £1,005.

Both had been convicted of conspiracy to permit drivers employed by the company to make false daily records and of conspiracy in permitting drivers not to have at least 10 consecutive rest hours in periods of 24 hours. Giving a reserved judgment, Mr. Justice Edmund Davies, who sat with Mr. Justice Widgery and Mr. Justice John Stephenson, said the prosecution alleged a conspiracy to permit the company's drivers to drive without having the periods of rest laid down by the Road Traffic Act. This received the drivers' approval because they were paid overtime. it was alleged that these activities were covered up by falsification of log sheets.

A traffic inspector gave evidence that after keeping observation he was handed an obviously false log sheet. He was followed into the witness box by a large number of drivers who testified as to irregularities.

Mr. Blamire gave evidence that the company had a very substantial business. He had found paying drivers by hours unsatisfactory and gave 11 hours' pay for a journey to London whatever time was actually taken. He denied that false log sheets had been put in and said there was no reason why drivers should not • get their proper rest.

The first ground of appeal was that because the offences the conspiracy was directed to procuring were only triable summarily, before magistrates, conspiracy to commit them could not properly be the subject of a trial on indictment.

In the court's judgment, said Mr. Justice Edmund Davies, there had been a well-settled practice over a long period of time to accept as valid conspiracy charges of the kind laid in the present case. The first ground of appeal therefore failed.

The second ground was that the trial judge, Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson, had not correctly directed the jury on the necessity of corroboration Of accomplices' evidence.

In the court's view there had been no omission in the summing-up and that ground also failed.


comments powered by Disqus