WHO GOE TO COURT':
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Is the public getting short shrift from the Prosecution Services when it comes to taking operators to court? It is according to Michael I and, as secretary of the Coroners' Society, he know. Last week Burgess told the Transport Committee that the CPS is reluctant to bring a mac case to court unless it has an 80% chance of gE prosecution. Actually that sounds quite sensible Indeed, we'd argue that there's no point in takii dodgy operator to court unless you're 100% cer success—preferably guaranteed in writing by thr lords. After all, allowing one guilty operator to court only encourages others to follow suit. And it c tie for the prestige of the court, or the enforcemen cies' reputation. The problem with Burgess's claim i stands in isolation: we haven't heard the CPS's vie' Its reluctance to gamble on so many cases could ' because it hasn't got the evidence it needs to SE conviction—which for law enforcers is really the rr result, isn't it?
The police, Vehicle Inspectorate or Trading Sta don't always have the time, or more likr resources, to provide the evidence that ensur conviction. The enforcement agencies, being only I don't always do their job properly either. CM's leg( pages frequently carry reports of overloading case: have been thrown out of court because the police or the VI haven't followed the code of practice for weighing. And quite right too—any operator, good or bad, who's accused of breaking the rules has every right to be prosecuted according to the rules. Talk of "percentages" is at best misleading, at worst irrelevant. The only thing that really counts in the war against the cowboy operator is getting the hard evidence that puts him out of business—for good.