1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
0-licensing conviction follows police objections
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• At Bilston magistrates' court last week Mr Henry James of 31 Haraby Road, Bilston, Staffs, was fined £20 and ordered to pay £5 15s costs after being found guilty of knowingly making a false statement in an application for an operator's licence. The prosecution was brought under Section 235 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and followed what is believed IO be the first 0-licence objection by the police.
The court was told that on February 27 the defendant made an application to the West Midlands Licensing Authority for an operator's licence for one vehicle in possession and two vehicles to be acquired. In reply to Question 15 on the application form, asking whether he had been convicted for any relevant offences in the previous five years, the applicant had entered "no". Question 16, asking for details of any such convictions, had been left blank; the appli
cation form had been signed by Mr James.
The application was published in As and Ds on March 5 and on March 13 the LA's office received from the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Constabulary an objection to the application on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit person to hold an operator's licence, having regard to his record of relevant convictions during five years preceding the application. Attached to the objection notice was a schedule of convictions and, as required by the Transport Act 1968, copies of the objection and the schedule were sent to the applicant on March 13.
Evidence was given that on March 18 the LA's office received notice from a haulage association representing Mr James that there had been certain omissions in the original application form. The association had been authorized by Mr James to with
draw his first application, which would be followed by an amended one.
The amended application which was received by the West Midland traffic area office on March 19 included a reply of "yes" to question 15 on the application form, while in reply to question 16 there was listed the same convictions as those given by the police in their objection.
At this, the West Midland LA gave notice of prosecution on the grounds that a false statement had knowingly been made by the applicant in his original application for an 0 licence.
Before the Bilston magistrates, Mr James entered a plea of not guilty, but was found guilty and fined as already stated.
The second application for the operator's licence is awaiting consideration by the LA.