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 
Garnex fines quashed
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Fines imposed on Garnex, trading as C J Stanley, and one of its drivers, for overloading offences were quashed at Bolton Crown Court, following evidence from a customer that his staff were at fault.
Rochdale magistrates had fined the company £150 for a 7.3% gross overload, and £200 for a 10.2% second-axle overload, and driver Arthur Brassington £75 for each offence, The Rochdale general manager of Amoa Chemical Co, Norman Wilby, told the Court that the offences resulted from an error by his company's staff in filling bottles with a litre of fluid instead of 0.75 litre. The mistake would nut have been noticeable as the bottles were dark in colour and the people concerned had since been disciplined.
Defending, John Backhouse said Garnex had not been previously convicted of overloading and it had never previously experienced any difficulties with the loads it had carried on behalf of Amoa Chemicals.
He referred to the High Court case of Hart vs Bex, and various Crown Court decisions, which indicated that where defendants were morally guiltless of absolute liability offences like overloading, an absolute discharge was approriate.
Dropping the fines in favour of absolute discharges, and ordering that the defendants' appeal costs be paid out of public funds, Judge Proctor said he was satisfied that the circumstances of the case were exceptional. The customer had, unusually, been prepared to give evidence that it was entirely to blame for the offences.
He was satisfied that neither Brassington nor his employers could have had any reason to suspect that the vehicle concerned might be overloaded.