Quarterly Summary
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000210 |
| Published date | 01 April 1966 |
| Date | 01 April 1966 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly Summary
Extended reports
of
some
of
the cases here summarised will be given in our next
issue.-Editor)
"PERMITTING"
DRIVING OF VEHICLE
Grays Haulage Co. Ltd. v. Arnold
This
was a successful appeal to
the
Divisional Court by
road hauliers who had been convicted of "permitting" their
driver to drive an
'A'
licence goods vehicle continuously for an
excessive aggregate of hours contrary to s. 73
(I)
(ii) of
the
Road Traffic Act 1960.
The
prosecution proved
that
the
driver had so driven and
that
his employers did
not
supplystaff
or devices at their yard or on
the
vehicle, or require the driver
to telephone by reverse charges on the journey, to prevent him
from driving contrary to
the
provisions of
the
Act.
The
Divisional Court held
that
knowledge was
the
very essence of
"permitting"
and that there was no evidence of "permitting".
The
Court said
that
there was far too great atendency today
to impute knowledge in circumstances which did not justify
its being imputed.
The
justices had, in effect, said
that
what
amounted to an offence was the mere fact
that
the
defendants
had not taken steps which would have prevented their driver
from driving excessively. (110 Sol.
J.
112).
A MAN
SOLICITING
WOMEN
Crook v. Edmondson
By a majority
the
Divisional Court upheld an acquittal of
a man for persistently soliciting for immoral purposes, contrary
to s. 32 of
the
Sexual Offences Act 1956.
It
was conceded
that
the
appellant's conduct could amount to soliciting and
the
case
turned on
the
meaning of
the
words
"for
immoral purposes"
in circumstances where
the
accused was
"kerb
crawling" in
his car from which he accosted women in
the
street.
In
the
Act of 1956 and in other statutes there was no provision making
it illegal to have heterosexual intercourse between adults, as
139
To continue reading
Request your trial