AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Traffic Officers as " Snoopers "

7th August 1953, Page 34
7th August 1953
Page 34
Page 34, 7th August 1953 — Traffic Officers as " Snoopers "
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?

Keywords : Law / Crime, Sports

TWO traffic officers who boarded a coach hired for a private party were referred to as " snoopers " by the Lord Chief Justice in 'the High Court last week. He heard an appeal against a decision of Rochester magistrates, who dismissed six charges that J. W. H. Watson (Rochester), Ltd., had unlawfully permitted a coach to be used as an express carriage.

The appeal was allowed in respect of only one decision, that the coach was not used by a private party, two non-members having joined it. The other five charges were dismissed on the ground that the coach was used on "special occasions" within the meaning of the 1930 Act.

On November 15, 1952, a coach was hired from the defendants by the secretary of the United Services Club, Rainham, to take their members to Gillingham football ground. The prosecutor and a traffic examiner boarded the vehicle and travelled to Gillingham. A member of the club committee collected fares from them, but neither the defendants' servants nor anyone else knew that they were not members of the club.

It was argued that their presence•in the coach prevented the party from being a "private party." They were, the Lord Chieflustice supposed, officers of the traffic authority, or perhaps they might be called by another name— "snoopers',

No court had ever liked actions by what were usually called "agents provocateurs" which resulted in the imposition of criminal liability, but the court must had that in this case there was an offence. The coach. was in the. charge of the defendants servant, who A32 took no precautions to ascertain that persons who were not members of the Club did not join the party, and the defendants could not be absolved from blame.

There was a duty on the coach proprietor to take precautions, and if people who were not members of the club were passengers in the coach he was liable for prosecution.

Tags

People: Chieflustice
Locations: Rochester

comments powered by Disqus