Forged permits fine
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LORRY driver was fined E100 in his absence after magistrates at Camberwell, South London, had found him guilty of forging a permit.
In addition to the UN fine, imposed last Wednesday, Mr Melvin Alan Peter Whitely of Norwood was also ordered to pay MO costs.
Mr J. Allen, senior traffic examiner in the Metropolitan Area, described the permit as: "A very good forgery indeed which would deceive me if produced at night.
Mr Allen told the court that he had received information that a forged international road haulage permit had been in the possession of Mr Whiteley on March 23, 1976. Earlier Mr Allen had checked the validity of the permit with the " Newcastle office of the Department of the Environment, responsible for the issue of international road haulage permits, and had confirmed that it was a forgery. The serial number of the permit had not been issued by the responsible clerk at Newcastle; the authorised stamp was the wrong size; the name of the company — "Grange Transport," ostensibly of River Road, Barking, was not known; and the signature on the permit was not that of the authorising officer.
Mr Allen described a visit to Mr Whiteley, in the presence of another traffic examiner. Whiteley said at the outset: "It's about that permit, isn't it? It was given to me by someone else."
After being cautioned, said Mr Allen, Whiteley admitted that he had been in possession of the permit but he claimed that he had not used it on the trip to Italy because the firm he was working for had got a legitimate permit. The permit had been in his possession for a long time. It had been given him by a former employer.
Asked why he should keep the permit unless intending to use it on international road haulage, Whiteley had replied: "I don't know. I just held on to it." Mr Whiteley added: "I didn't really find out it was forged until sometime in June when another lorry driver told me."
Mr Allen said he asked Whiteley why he had not returned the permit to the person who had given it to him, or to the International Road Haulage permit office at Newcastle, or even, why he had not destroyed the permit after learning it was a forgery. Whiteley had replied: "I know, I should have done."
Whiteley, said Mr Allen, had been told that he would be reported for the offence of having in his possession an international road haulage permit with intent to deceive and following a caution Whiteley had made a written statement.
The magistrates found the case proved.