Guilty until proven innocent
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• The principle of being innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in overloading cases. The position seems to be that the operator is guilty unless he can prove otherwise, at least as far as dynamic axle weighbridges are concerned.
In other words, a dynamic axle weighbridge is presumed to be accurate unless proved otherwise.
How can you do that? We have recently seen a series of cases where operators have successfully challenged the accuracy of dynamic axle weighbridges.
We have also had challenges before the High Court because the weighbridge was a computer and the prosecutors had not complied with Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. And we have had challenges because the Code of Practice had not been followed. These challenges have been successful at crown courts as well as at magistrates courts.
But the High Court recently supported the dynamic axle weighbridge regulations, overriding any possible breaches of the Code of Practice for the use of dynamic axle weighbridges (CM 6-12 March). This follows a presumption that the weighbridge is accurate unless the operator can prove otherwise. The prosecution is not obliged to prove its accuracy, as it has had to in the past by compliance with the code.
The message from the High Court seems to be that if you are accused of being overloaded, plead guilty, accept the fine, pay the prosecutor his costs and tell the Traffic Commissioner.
It may now be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the weighbridge was inaccurate because the evidence simply won't be available.