AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Prima Facie Case Against Mr. Cropper Says Appeal Judge

4th December 1964
Page 65
Page 65, 4th December 1964 — Prima Facie Case Against Mr. Cropper Says Appeal Judge
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?

THE appeal of Mr. Ralph C. F. Cropper, a transport consultant, of Farnborough Hill, Kent, against his conviction last December of making a false statement to the Ministry of Transport in July. 1962, in order to obtain a variation in a carrier's A licence; is to he reheard by the London Sessions appeals committee.

Allowing an appeal by the Ministry of Transport from a decision of the Appeals Committee on February 5. upholding Mr. Cropper's appeal, Lord Parker (Lord Chief Justice), sitting with Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Brabin in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court last week, ordered that the rehearing should be before a differently constituted committee from that which allowed the appeal.

Mr. Cropper, who had been fined £25 and ordered to pay 100 guineas costs by the Marlborough Street (London) Magistrate, Mr. J. H. L. Aubrey-Fletcher, was ordered to nay the costs of the Divisional Court proceedings. Mr. Cropper had been awarded 75 guineas costs by the appeals committee.

Mr. Justice Brabin, giving judgment, said there was a prima facie case against Mr. Cropper and the appeals committee had erred in holding that there was no case for Mr. Cropper to answer. The judge said that by applying for variations in the A licence and giving 56A Abbey Grove, Abbey Wood, London, S.E.2, as the operating centre for Longtield Transport Ltd., Mr. Cropper had sought to put before the Ministry a picture of• an increasing business, whereas the reality was that for all practical purposes the vehicles for which the licence was granted were nonexistent, carrying phantom loads on imaginary journeys Over an increasing area of operations which was extended on paper only.

The one real aspect of the matter was that when the licence came to be sold its value had been enhanced to 1625. This had been achieved by a series of variations which, individually, were trivial, but had the cumulative effect of providing Longfield Transport Ltd. with an enhanced licence.

The judge said that no vehicles belonging to Longfield Transport Ltd. had operated from the Abbey Wood address. but the appeals committee had found that Mr. Cropper had been given permission to use the address and there was an intention to use the centre in the future. In the light of the evidence, however, His Lordship could not see how the committee could arrive at such a decision.


comments powered by Disqus