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
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Lords' ruling on tachos
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A House of Lords ruling could have enormous implications for hauliers who refuse to let traffic examiners take tacho charts off their premises even when there's no suspicion of wrong-doing.
The decision, which upheld an earlier verdict by the High Court, means that a haulier will be guilty of failing to produce tachograph records if it does not allow a traffic examiner to leave its offices with the charts.
Cantabrica Coach Holdings received the original conviction for failing to produce tachograph records and appealed this at the High Court. When this appeal was rejected it turned to the Lords, which upheld the High Court's findings.
In dismissing the appeal, the Law Lords confirmed that the Vehicle Inspectorate may require the hand-over of records for their examination, analysis and copying at their own premises.
The prosecution does not have to prove that it was reasonable for the officer to take the documents away, they ruled. Lord Scott considered it must, in principle, be up to the operator to prove that the VI's request was so unreasonable as to be illegal.
He said that if the inspection could be carried out at the operator's premises, the removal would cause disruption to the business, or outside equipment could be used without too much difficulty, then the request could be considered illegal.
The importance of the efficient functioning of the regulatory system was not open to question, he said. However, it was important that the limits of official powers should be clearly defined to prevent them becoming an offensive burden on the public they were supposed to serve.