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 
Heavy Fines for Log-sheet Conspiracy
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE managing director of a transport company, accused of conspiring to falsify drivers log sheets, was lined £1,005 at Lancaster Assizes last week and the company ordered to pay costs up to £2,000.
Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson told Winston Blamire; 50, of Chapel Lane, Longton. near Preston, that he had been running the business at possible risks to other road users because his drivers were tired and their risk was being igncred for his own profit. He was given six months to pay: in default, one year's imprisonment.
Blamire and William Quigley, 32, formerly employed as a traffic manager at the Longton depot of the companyIllamire's Transport Services Ltd.—were found guilty of conspiring to falsify drivers' log sheets and of conspiring to contravene the Traffic Regulations about hours of rest for drivers. Quigley was fined £105, John Rogers, 52, checker at the Langton depot, and Robert Barr, 38, a foreman shunter at the company's Glasgow depot. were both found not guilty on both counts and were acquitted.
Frank William Coombs, 41, traffic manager at the Millwall, London, depot,
was found not guilty of conspiring to falsify log sheets but guilty of conspiring to contravene the rest period regulation. He was fined £100.
Another -:en-iployee at the Millwall depot,Joseph Blake, 36, a yard foreman, was • also found not guilty on the first charge but guilty on the second and was lined 150. •
Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C., for Blamire and the company, submitted in .mitigation that no harm had beendone and this was a type of conspiracy case which differed from others because it was conspiracy in connection with summary type offences.: