port) has suc ceeded in having a £430 overloading fine halved after a Crown Court appeal.
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Sheffield Crown Court accepted that Barnsley magistrates had failed to take into account substantial mitigating circumstances.
Durrans had admitted overloading the second axle of a 17-tonner by 690kg — about 6.6%. The company said that all its depots had weighbridges and drivers were told to weigh trucks when entering and leaving the premises. The driver in this case, who had been fined £230, had disobeyed that instruction.
For Durrans, John Backhouse said that the High Court had indicated, in the case of Hart vs Hex, that if the company was not negligent or blameworthy an absolute discharge was appropriate.
In this case a substantial portion of blame had been attached to the driver, he said, The company had gone to a lot of expense, installing weighbridges and insisting that its drivers use them, to avoid committing such offences.
Producing copies of Commercial Motor, Backhouse said that the Hart vs Bex principle had been followed by Leeds Crown Court in the case of E Dowse & Son (CM 18 October 1986). Backhouse also referred the court to a report at Exeter Crown Court (CM 22-28 November 1990).
He argued that the magistrates had used the sentencing guidelines for overloading offences as a tariff, without taking any account of the substantial mitigating circumstances.
Accepting that was so, the High Court cut the fine to £230. Judge Hunt said that the magistrates appeared to have Backhouse referred to previous CM story on Exeter case.
applied the guidelines exactly. Although he was not prepared to say that the company was totally blameless, as it could have required drivers to produce a weight ticket to a member of staff before leaving the depot, he did feel that there was substantial mitigation.