| TRANSCO SIGNS CASE VERDICT
|
||||
|
Tony Bennett writes DECISIONThe Decisions of the Judge were as follows: Theft of 29 road signs from McAlpine (returned to McAlpine in October but with the metric distances painted over) -- Guilty.... 50 hours' Community Service Order. Criminal damage to one road sign (covering over just the metric distance with paint) -- Guilty.... also 50 hours' Community Service Order. Both sentences to run concurrently; ie. 50 hours in total to serve. Prosecution application for costs in the sum of £300 -- granted in full. Compensation to McAlpine for having to order 29 new signs in yards
instead of metres -- not granted as both McAlpine and the Crown
Prosecution Service had forgotten to complete a compensation claim form. The Community Service Order is to be carried out under the directions of Essex Probation Service. APPEAL The Costs Order is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. However, the Community Service Order is not suspended, leaving open the possibility that the Community Service Order may have been fully served before the appeal is heard. VICTIM The first was: "Do you accept responsibility for your actions", to which I replied: "Yes, I always have done". The second was: "Are you aware of the effects of your actions on the victim?" I replied: "Yes, they had to order a new set signs in yards which they should have done when their illegal use of metric signs was first reported over four and a half years ago, they're now using legal signs in miles and yards on all their pipeline projects, and neither of these things would have happened at all but for my having removed those signs from the roadside when I did". He moved rapidly on to the next question. VANDALISM JUDGEMENT What he did not say is what one should do if the 'appropriate authorities' totally refuse to take any action at all to deal with persistent breaches of Parliament's Regulations. CUSTODIAL SENTENCE ALTERNATIVES TO DIRECT
ACTION? If successful, the Court would make a 'mandaumus' order requiring Transco to conform with the relevant Traffic Signs Regulations. That would take some considerable time to come on for hearing, going to the back of the queue behind urgent family and other urgent injunction proceedings, and would be prohibitively expensive, costing a minimum of thousands of pounds. THANKS
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|