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 
Southampton haulier wins 'defective handbrake' appeal
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Conviction of a Southampton haulage company for allowing a lorry to be used with a defective brake was quashed on Wednesday of last week by three High Court judges.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court allowed with costs an appeal by Hill and Sons (Botley and Denmead) Ltd, against the dismissal by Hampshire Sessions of its appeal against conviction by magistrates sitting at Basingstoke.
A £10 fine had been imposed on the company, which was also ordered to pay costs. articulated lorry parked in a lay-by on A30 near Basingstoke.
While the driver was in a nearby cafe, the hand-brake failed and the lorry ran across the road, damaging other vehicles.
Under the maintenance system in operation all vehicles were serviced at monthly intervals.
The one thing that could be said against the company's managing director, Mr John Augustus Hill, was that he had not followed up what on the face of it was an efficient maintenance system by checking that maintenance had been carried out. "That does not amount to recklessness," the Lord Chief Justice ruled.
An employer could only be guilty of such an offence if it could be shown that he had knowledge that an offence was committed, or he had "closed his eyes to the obvious".
In dismissing the appeal last July, Quarter Sessions decided the absence of the follow-up check amounted to recklessness.
"They erred in law in concluding that this director's conduct was reckless," he said, "and there should have been an acquittal on this charge."
Mr Justice Lyell added that it was wrong for Quarter Sessions to draw the inference that Mr Hill was reckless, particularly as he employed a foreman fitter with 35 years' experience, and a fitter who had been in the trade even longer. Lord Widgery (Lord Chief Justice), who sat with Mr Justice Lyell and Mr Justice Cooke, said the offence related to a heavy