The Law to be Contested
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
What Are Reasonable Steps?
TEST eases appear to be the order 1 of the day. Within the past few weeks, two such cases were placed before two different London Magistrates. There is a possibility, I understand, that both will go to the Divisional Court but, as the law stands at present, one of them is doomed from the start.
A. May Transport, Ltd., of Wapping High Street, London—they are one of the "sister companies" in the Davis "group "— were recently summonsed, charged with five offences of failing to ensure that their drivers kept current work records.
This company shares a base in London's dockland with its sister companies and, as is well known, one of these—C. Bristow, Ltd—ran into difficulties a year or so ago, as a result of which a substantial number of their vehicles were taken off the road by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority.
Earlier this year their " slate " was "wiped clean " by he Authority and their licences restored. But ever since this unfortunate incident the " group " have received, I understand, a considerable amount of attention from the enforcement branch of the Metropolitan Traffic Area, which has resulted in the recent prosecution of A. May Transport, Ltd.
The Davis brothers—the family have -directors in all the companies—are in the unfortunate position of having poor industrial relations with the Transport and General Workers' Union, and it is their contention that because of renewed efforts to get their drivers to keep correct, current records that the meat haulage section were involved in a strike recently —a strike which lost them several good customers, caused others to "double up " by seeking a " standby " haulage contractor, and involved Davis's in a loss of some thousands of pounds.
May Transport pleaded not guilty to four of the summonses in which they were automatically charged because of the misdemeanour of their driver, and the Thames Magistrate, after a long hearing, convicted them on two of the charges, fining them £20 on each count. "It is the absolute duty of the defendants to take reasonable steps to ensure accurate records were kept," observed the Magistrate when he passed sentence.
I would venture to ask, what are "reasonable steps "? Many hauliers have found themselves in the position of May Transport, but so far there is no clearcut decision on what are reasoirable steps.
In the meantime, the legal advisers to May Transport are considering whether or not to ask the Thames Magistrate to State a Case with a view to appealing to a higher court. I understand that the Road Haulage Association would—to use the words of one of their officials" look favourably on any request by a member to sponsor any suitable action that would help to change this law."
Whilst the fines in themselves may seem trivial, notices of such convictions are sent to Licensing Authorities, who are entitled to take them into account when considering applications.
I repeat what I said about this matter a few months ago—" This law, which embarrasses even the advocates who are prosecuting, is harsh and should be changed."