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 
Costs Awarded Against Ministry
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Charges Against Contractor Withdrawn
A FTER a three-day hearing, Taunton
magistrates last week awarded Douglas Fear, managing director of W. Fear and Sons, Ltd., Taunton, 30 guineas costs against the Ministry of Transport after charges against him had been withdrawn.
The case was a Ministry of Transport prosecution against the company (who
are -removal contractors), the managing
director and four drivers on a total of 65 counts concerning alleged irregularities in drivers records and hours of work.
Pleas of not guilty had been entered for the firm in answer to 34 summonses and by Mr. Fear to five. The four drivers admitted failure to keep records correctly but two denied further charges alleging they had worked excessive hours.
The case was described by one defending counsel as amounting to "a persecu tion and not a prosecution and also as being " a vendetta by one person against the company."
During the second day's bearing one witness, Philip Barnard, a former driver with the firm, refused to answer cer tain questions by Mr. C. Ingram Poole, defending the company and Mr.
Fear, but eventually admitted that certain entries in his diary regarding driving hours and stops were not entered at the time "but after I heard the Ministry of Transport inspector wanted to see me."
Mr. H. E. F. Lock, for the Ministry, said that in view of the turn the cross examination had taken he had no recourse but to ask the Bench to dismiss the five charges against Douglas Fear.
Witnesses Complain
Two of the witnesses called by the prosecution made complaints about the manner in which they had been interviewed by Ministry officials. One said that an official had not seemed inclined to accept his answer that he had not had a bill from Fears for removal of his furniture from Taunton: "lie intimated that if he did not get answers from me they would get them elsewhere, and it was suggested this might be from my fiancee in Taunton." The other witness who complained said the manner in which he was questioned was such that his wife asked the official to leave the house. Both said that statements held by the prosecution, purporting to have been Made by them, were not their statements, nor had they signed them, and one of the witnesses said the statement had been made up from answers he gave to questions.
The Ministry's chief witness, Mr. James Jones, a former Metropolitan Police superintendent, vigorously denied that he had conducted a personal vendetta against the Fears in pursuing his inquiries, and said he had acted throughout on instructions. He said he wrote out statements from the answers . made by witnesses—just as depositions were taken down in court. He read them over to the witnesses who, however, declined to sign them, he said.
For the four drivers, Mr. L. H. Collins contended the records offences were of a minor nature and asked the Bench to give the men a conditional discharge.
The magistrates fined the company a total of £16 (Ell on three charges of failure to comply with the conditions of carrier's licence, £3 for permitting excessive hours and £2 for using a goods vehicle without a carrier's licence). Alan White, one of the four drivers, was fined £2 for driving without a proper rest period; all the other remaining summonses were either dismissed or absolute discharges given.