AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Dangerous vehicle conviction quashed

9th May 1996, Page 28
9th May 1996
Page 28
Page 28, 9th May 1996 — Dangerous vehicle conviction quashed
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• St Albans Crown Court has quashed a convic tion against ri) I Chelmsford lorry driver Glen Maples for using a dangerous vehicle. Maples had been convicted by Hertford Magistrates after they heard that the rear nearside pair of wheels of his artic had become partially detached on a slip road to a bypass.

Maples had stopped because he had seen in his mirror that was wrong with the wheels: he had removed them and then moved slowly at about 12mph towards a nearby layby where he could safely stop until a fitter arrived. The incident had been seen by the police, who escorted the vehicle to a better place to stop.

For the prosecution, Simon Smith said that Maples appeal was unop posed. Following discussions with the defence, it was accepted that the way the charge had been brought was defective.

Fines totalling £120 for using the vehicle with defective headlight and indicator bulbs were replaced by absolute discharges, For Maples, John Backhouse said that the lights had been working perfectly when he carried out his daily check. Maples had been unaware that the bulbs had failed—it was midday and the vehicle's lights were not in use. The indicator warning light on his dashboard did not show failures of the front indicators; only those at the rear and on die trailer. The court directed that Maples defence costs be paid out of public funds.


comments powered by Disqus