publications.parliament.uk/p … uttall.htm
only wilful and recklessness is sufficient to secure a conviction. 
don’t say it at the roadside, just go to court. they always drop the charge.
MADBAZ:
:?:
that dosn’t say anything. 
straight over the top of my head,how are we supposed to understand the law if our learned friend get it wrong. ■■?
limeyphil:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990318/nuttall.htm
I’m unsure as to how you think this makes a get out clause from paying fines for breaking the law.
limeyphil:
only wilful and recklessness is sufficient to secure a conviction.
I’ve gotta be honest i never got as far as this bit. But was this pertaining to the operators conduct of checking on the driver and his hours, i think so ?
limeyphil:
don’t say it at the roadside, just go to court. they always drop the charge.
Thats not true, i know plenty who have gone to court !!
Mike-C:
limeyphil:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990318/nuttall.htmI’m unsure as to how you think this makes a get out clause from paying fines for breaking the law.
limeyphil:
only wilful and recklessness is sufficient to secure a conviction.I’ve gotta be honest i never got as far as this bit. But was this pertaining to the operators conduct of checking on the driver and his hours, i think so ?
limeyphil:
don’t say it at the roadside, just go to court. they always drop the charge.Thats not true, i know plenty who have gone to court !!
yes. you go to court, then that’s where the cps drop the charges.
you ask the witness (vosa or police) a few basic questions.
after the basic questions, you then say something on the lines of “i would like to draw the attention of the court to the case of the vehicle inspectorate v nutall”.
the cps jumps up, and says “the crown would like to drop all charges”.
if you get caught running bent as [zb], then this won’t help in the slightest.
this will only help if you are fined for running over your hours a bit, insufficient rest periods, running over 90 hours in a fortnight. that sort of thing.
they must prove that you had complete disregard for the law, and that you wilfully, and recklessly ignored it.
in other words, they must prove you didn’t give a [zb].
i can sort of see where phils coming from, but i am not sure if that defence would work, as it was not the drivers in this appeal but the operator, and from the way i read it he was being done for “permitting the offences of the driver” by not having their cards checked, and by not having safeguards in place to detect offences.
as he wasn’t the driver who committed the offence and he claimed that by his sceduling they should not of over run their time he was not being reckless in the eyes of the law, or showing a disreguard for the law, and i think thats how the appeal judges saw it as well, might have to sit for another hour and read it all through again if my brain can take it somethime 
limeyphil:
if you get caught running bent as [zb], then this won’t help in the slightest.
this will only help if you are fined for running over your hours a bit, insufficient rest periods, running over 90 hours in a fortnight. that sort of thing.they must prove that you had complete disregard for the law, and that you wilfully, and recklessly ignored it.
in other words, they must prove you didn’t give a [zb].
I’ll take your word for it !! 
limeyphil:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990318/nuttall.htmonly wilful and recklessness is sufficient to secure a conviction.
don’t say it at the roadside, just go to court. they always drop the charge.
I like this bit Phil, it sort of says a lot about defending yourself 
The word “permit”, like very many other words, is capable of a range of meanings–from “authorise” to “fail to prevent.” In any given situation it has to take its meaning from its context. In the context of this legislation and the Regulations, it means, in my judgment, fail to take reasonable steps to prevent. It is used in the section in addition to the word “cause” and has a wider meaning. The person covered by the criminal obligation is a person who is in a position to control the driver; the driver is his employee or subject to his orders. Under the Regulations the employer is under a duty to make periodic checks to ensure that the Regulations are being complied with and, if breaches are found, to take appropriate steps to prevent their repetition. (Article 15.2 of 3820/85.) In agreement with Lord Steyn I consider that the actus reus of the offence of permitting in this section is the failure of the employer to take reasonable steps to prevent the infringement of the Regulations by the driver.
To be honest I only skipped over the article but as far as I can see the Lords appeal said it was wrong that the case against Nuttall was dropped and ordered that the case should be sent back to the magistrates court for a re-trial, so I don’t see why you’re saying “don’t pay the fines” or “go to court. they always drop the charge”
This case is not about the drivers involved, they have had their punisment(s). This is about the operator and whether he was responsible for making sure his drivers were keeping to the regulations. It was found in the first instance that because he said he didn’t check tachos he was not to know that the drivers weren’t keeping to their hours, and he was found not guilty. The vehicle inspectorate appealed this and the appeal judge agreed that by not checking the tachos he was willfully closing his eyes to infringements and that a responsible employer would check tachos and other things to keep on top of drivers hours and to keep everything legal. The appeal judge sent the case back to the original court directing them to find the employer guilty on the basis that not knowing about infringements is no defence as he should under his obligations as an employer have been checking tachos and therefore would have been aware. Willfull blindness on the employer’s part.
This has nothing to do with drivers getting pulled at the roadside, admitting anything, going to court or the cps dropping charges.Limeyphil= talking out of his arse
cupidstunt:
This case is not about the drivers involved, they have had their punisment(s). This is about the operator and whether he was responsible for making sure his drivers were keeping to the regulations. It was found in the first instance that because he said he didn’t check tachos he was not to know that the drivers weren’t keeping to their hours, and he was found not guilty. The vehicle inspectorate appealed this and the appeal judge agreed that by not checking the tachos he was willfully closing his eyes to infringements and that a responsible employer would check tachos and other things to keep on top of drivers hours and to keep everything legal. The appeal judge sent the case back to the original court directing them to find the employer guilty on the basis that not knowing about infringements is no defence as he should under his obligations as an employer have been checking tachos and therefore would have been aware. Willfull blindness on the employer’s part.
This has nothing to do with drivers getting pulled at the roadside, admitting anything, going to court or the cps dropping charges.Limeyphil= talking out of his arse
This admission in itself is enough to get the goat of the TC incumbent, as the operator or his agent has already signed a binding declaration to check the drivers work schedules and working time on the O licence application.
Don’t think that this case (Nutall Vs Vehicle Inspectorate) is the one that you want to be quoting to get you ‘off the hook’ for roadside offences.
As others have said the case was resubmitted to the Magistrates Court for retrial not the result that you want. This case is the stated authority on the operator (employer) committing ‘permit’ offences. Effectively the operator has a duty to check charts, bring offences to the attention of the employee and take corrective action; training / disciplinary action as appropriate. By not carrying out the required checking the operator was seen as ‘turning a blind eye’ to the offences committed by his employees.
This situation has been superseded by changes in the Transport Act 1968 that have removed ‘cause’ and ‘permit’ offences for drivers hours, the much simpler to prove ‘use’ offence remains, although there is a defence to this charge for the operator.
The point is limeyphil, you didn’t read the link you posted properly and thought it was a get out clause for drivers .
limeyphil:
MADBAZ:
that dosn’t say anything.
I think the consensus is, that this was the correct response 