Police Court Cases
| Published date | 01 January 1937 |
| Date | 01 January 1937 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201833700100101 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Police
Court
Cases
R. v. V. Bingley, trading as Bingley
Brothers-R.
v. Ernest
Bingley-R.
v. E.
A.
Winwood.
TWO
cases in which the same question was involved recently
came before two Police Courts in London, in which
the respective Magistrates gave different decisions.
The
first case was a prosecution by the Commissioner of
Traffic against the holder of a Road Service Licence for an
infringement of one of the conditions of his licence. Section 72
of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that the Commissioner
of Traffic may grant a Road Service Licence to any person
applying therefor and provide such a Road Service as may be
specified therein, and under sub-section 3 of the same section
it is provided that in his discretion the Commissioner may
attach conditions to any such licence having regard to the
several matters in the section mentioned. One of the matters
about which conditions may be made relates to points where
passengers may be taken up
and
set down, another condition
relates to fares which may be charged, and another condition
provides for the issue of tickets in respect of fares paid.
The
penal part of the section is in these words (sub-section 10) :
" if any person
being
the
holder
of
a Road Service
Licence
wilfully or negligently fails to complywith any of the conditions
attached to that licence he shall be guilty of an offence."
It
will be seen from the wording of this sub-section that
it is only the holder of a Road Service Licence who can be
prosecuted in respect of a breach of the conditions of the
licence. Assume for one moment that aperson has a Road
Service Licence relating to various routes and that he does
not drive his vehicle himself
but
employs a driver to do so
3
4
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
instead; the driver of course is not the holder of the Road
Service Licence; his master is. Assume further that the
driver in contravention of his instructions from his master, and
in contravention of the conditions attached to the licence,
picks up or sets down passengers at points not authorized by
the conditions of the licence, or that fare tickets are not issued
in accordance with the terms of the licence, or that the fares
charged do not comply with the terms of the licence. Can it
be said in any of these cases that the holder of the Road Service
Licence who was not driving and has no knowledge
of
the
infringements, has been guilty of either
"wilfully"
or
"negligently" failing to comply with the conditions attached
to his licence ?
This question has been answered in the affirmative by
Sir Gervais Rentoul, the Magistrate at the West London
Police Court, on 26th June last (R. o. V. Bingley and Ernest
Bingley) and in the negative by Mr. Metcalfe, the Magistrate
at the Old Street Police Court, on 5th June last (R. v. E. A.
Winwood).
The
question is an interesting one and one of considerable
importance, for it will be seen that if the holder of a Road
Service Licence is immune from the consequences of the acts
of his servants who are the drivers of his vehicles, the conditions
of the licence may be infringed by the drivers and no one can
be prosecuted in respect of them. As before pointed out, the
only person who can be prosecuted under sub-section 10,
section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is the holder of the
Road Service Licence.
In
both cases the arguments on both sides were the same.
Before Sir Gervais Rentoul it was contended by the Prosecu-
tion that as the holder of the Road Service Licence was alone
responsible he was the only man who could be prosecuted, and
it was argued that there are cases and circumstances under
which a master may be held responsible for the acts of his
servant.
The
prosecution referred to the case of Griffiths o,
Studebakers Limited (1924), I
K.B.,
102; 87 J.P., 199,
in which it was held that the master was guilty of an
To continue reading
Request your trial