AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

a In one of your answers under your

7th January 1972, Page 37
7th January 1972
Page 37
Page 37, 7th January 1972 — a In one of your answers under your
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?

Q & A column of CM (Dec 3) you state that a person may not be prosecuted unless served with written notice of prosecution within 14 days of the incident complained of. On February 3 1969 I was stopped on the M1 .¢y police who stated my vehicle was giving off excess exhaust smoke. I received notice of prosecution by Recorded Delivery on February 25, postmarked February 24, or 22 days after the alleged offence. I pleaded guilty by letter as I had no means of defending myself; it was only my word against two police officers, and was fined £5.

Was this prosecution in order in view of the 22 days between the alleged offence and notice of prosecution?

A This subject is dealt with by Section 241

of the Road Traffic Act 1960 which lists the offences where the statutory notice must be given: generally speaking these are offences concerned with bad driving. The police are not required to serve notices in cases of offences against the Construction and Use Regulations, under which prosecution for excessive smoke are taken.

The prosecution in your case was quite in order so far as the notice of intended prosecution was concerned. As a matter of interest, we are just starting a series of Know the Law articles on the Construction and Use Regulations and the subject of excessive smoke will be among those discussed.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus