Courts of Contempt
Page 25
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ONE of the standing complaints of the Licensing Authorities is that generally the penalties imposed by the courts for serious road transport offences, such as operation without a carrier's licence, are too light to serve as an adequate deterrent. There is a good deal of evidence to support this view. Indeed, a heavy fine causes widespread surprise, although the salutary effect is normally short-lived. Set against the legal expense—perhaps £50—of obtaining a licence, a fine of £5 for operation without one is insignificant. The culprit can suffer no further punishment for the offence, because, not holding a A23 licence, he cannot have it suspended or revoked. He can carry on his nefarious activities until he is again prosecuted and lined. Meanwhile, his earnines and the saving in the expense of applying for a licence far outweigh any financial penalty that is likely to be inflicted on him.
This collusive attitude on the part of the courts places a premium on honest trading. It puts the law-abiding operator at an acute disadvantage and undermines the whole structure • of the road haulage industry. Magistrates should fine heavily hauliers who operate without licences,. and make an example of customers who aid and 'abet.. It is the duty of every user of transport. to ensure that the carrier he employs holds the appropriate licence, and he cannot expect to escape the consequences : of failing to do so. He is just as culpable as the haulier himself.