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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238 
Stamper's Container Appeal Dismissed
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN appeal by John Stamper (Farms) Ltd. and the company's driver, Mr. J. W. Thurlow, against a decision of Lancaster magistrates on March 27 last convicting them of offences against Section 64 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, was dismissed with costs by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court last week. Stamper and Thurlow were found to have used a motor vehicle which, contrary to the provisions of Regulation 6 (3) of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations. 1955, exceeded 30 ft. in overall length.
Mr. Justice .Flinchcliffe, who sat with Lord Parker (the Lord Chief Justice) and Mr. Justice Ashworth, said that on February 16 Thurlow drove the vehicle in question on M6. It was being used for conveying livestock in a three-tier container, fixed to the vehicle at the front and back by screws and bolts.
With the container in position, the overall length of the vehicle was 32 ft. 11 in.; without the container in position, the overall length was 30 ft.
The appellant firm had 16 such vehicles and nine containers, which fitted every one of the goods vehicles. In these circumstances it had been contended before the magistrates and before the Divisional Court that the container did not form part of the motor vehicle for determining its overall length.
It was also contended by the appellants that the container was merely part of the load carried by the vehicle.
On behalf of the police, it had been submitted that the container was part of the vehicle, as it was securely fixed so as to effect a reconstruction.
The judge continued: "It seems to this court that when a cattle container is fixed to a heavy goods lorry, the vehicle is then so reconstructed that it must comply with the regulations. The magistrates did not, in the opinion of this court, misdirect themselves on the facts found; they arrived at the correct decision." Lord Parker and Mr. Justice Ashworth agreed.