1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Police objection to 0 licence succeeds
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Four men — a haulier, two drivers and an owner-operator — appeared before the Yorkshire LA, Mr R. S. Thornton, on Tuesday as a result of their connection with the theft of a quantity of limestone.
In the case of the haulier, Mr J. M. L. Henderson, of Barnsley, Yorkshire, the Police successfully objected to his application to vary his 0 licence by adding four vehicles and two trailers to his existing fleet of 14 vehicles and 16 trailers.
Mr Stephen Scallon, representing the Yorkshire Constabulary, told the LA that the objection to the variation had been made on the grounds that Mr Henderson had been convicted at Sheffield Crown Court on April 2 this year. Following the theft of 779 tons of crusher-run limestone, Mr Henderson had been fined £500 on two charges of obtaining money by false pretences and knowing the roadstone to have been stolen. He was also sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for two years, and a six-month imprisonment on default of payment for the fine had also been imposed.
Giving evidence, Detective Inspector Trigg, of the Wakefield Fraud Squad, said the offences were committed during the construction of M62 motorway between March 1971 and January 1972.
He said that at the trial the judge had made it clear that the LA would be notified of the convictions.
Mr Henderson told the LA that he had "paid his debt to society" and did not see why he should be penalized twice.
Mr R. J. Norman, of Park Grove, Barnsley, also received an objection to his variation application to increase his own fleet. However, he withdrew the application before the inquiry.
Nevertheless, Mr Norman and the two other drivers. Mr W. Valiance and Mr S. Farrar, were still called before the LA under Section 115 of the Road Traffic Act, 1972, to show cause why their hgv driving licences should not be suspended or revoked as a result of their part in the offence.
The LA heard that Mr Norman had been fined £100 for theft and a further £100 on another charge and had been given a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years. Mr Valiance had been convicted of theft and fined £25 and the second driver, also employed at the time by Mr Henderson, had been convicted of theft and fined £30.
All three told the LA that they were professional drivers and would have great difficulty in taking up new employment if their licences were revoked. Mr Norman, the owner-driver, said that shortly after the Crown Court case he had purchased a new vehicle on hire purchase and that if the LA were to suspend his driving licence, he would end up a bankrupt.
Giving evidence on behalf of the drivers, Mr G. McGougan, regional officer of the United Road Transport Union, told the LA: "I would like to make a plea on behalf of these drivers." He said they were all professionals and there was a shortage of Group 1 drivers in the Barnsley and Sheffield areas. "The trade union would feel it tragic if these licences were withdrawn."
The LA announced his decisions after hearing all four cases. With regard to the application by ' Mr Henderson, he said he could not accept an earlier remark by the applicant, to the effect that if he was fit to hold a licence authorizing 14 vehicles and 16 trailers, he must surely be a fit person to hold a licence authorizing the additional vehicles. The LA said this was not the case, and although he felt that the Transport Act 1968 did not give him the power to consider whether grounds had been given to suspend, curtail or entirely revoke the 0 licence held by Mr Henderson, it did give him the power to refuse the present application. Mr Henderson's claim that he was being penalized twice for the same offence was not the case, said Mr Thornton, as the first penalization had been entirely as a result of the offence, while his --(the LA's) was in regard to Mr Henderson's conduct as a professional haulier. He added that his decision did not mean that any ,future application by Mr Henderson would be automatically refused.
In the case of the three drivers, the LA decided to take no action. But he told them to treat the inquiry as a formal warning and that "any misdemeanours or departures from proper and honest behaviour as drivers will land you back here".