AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

'Dangerous' rapist denied LGV licence

11th January 2007
Page 6
Page 6, 11th January 2007 — 'Dangerous' rapist denied LGV licence
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?

A TRUCK DRIVER with a string of convictions for violent offences against women — including some committed in lay-bys — has been banned indefinitely from holding an LGV licence.

David Tarren was convicted at Teesside Crown Court in 1988 of attempted rape and jailed for 42 months. In 1999 he was jailed for a further eight years for two rapes, two assaults and procuring a woman to become a prostitute.

In 2003 Tarren was convicted of three offences of raping a girl under 16, a further offence of rape and two of indecent assault; he was sentenced to a further 41/2 years' imprisonment.

TarrentoldNorth-FasternTraffic Commissioner Tom Macartney (above) that he was determined not to re-offend. He was doing groundwork for Tynedale Council but said the loss of his LGV entitlement would be tantamount to a loss of his livelihood, and that his current job depended on being able to drive an LGV.

However, the Probation Service had warned the TC that Tarren was likely to reoffend. Hazel Willoughby, director of offender management, said Tarren had been assessed as a very highrisk offender. If he was granted a new LGV licence he would have a legitimate reason for being in lay-bys, which had been the scene of previous offences committed while he was employed as a truck driver.

The TC said the police had pointed out that Tarren was on the Sex Offenders Register.

He concluded that Tarren presented a danger to other road users, which would he heightened if his LGV licence was restored. Tarren's record of offences. particularly in lay-bys and at the roadside, was unusually serious. It was a continuing pattern and Tarren was seen to be dangerous and likely to re-offend.

This was an unusual case, the TC concluded. Conventional road safety was usually the key consideration, but safety must not be interpreted so narrowly as to put other road users and members of the public at risk.