 | |
|
As a result of "other parties" printing "inaccuracies" about our company, we have been forced to state the following, and as we say..... You Decide. | |
| |
THE HISTORYWay back in 2005 we sold an amphib to a customer - Adrian Cowdroy - who thought he could make money by offering tours on Lake Windermere in an amphib, the plan was to tour on the water then drive up the bank into the hinterland - there were just a few small problems ………. virtually all the land around the lake was either private or a conservation area, if that wasn't bad enough he also wanted to drive from one lake to another - this was banned by the Lake Wardens as they didn't want to cross contaminate different lakes with algae and other marine life. So the whole project was doomed before it even started. The maths just doesn't add up for this project but he proceeded anyway. A specific condition of the contract for the sale and purchase of the amphib (not disputed by Mr Cowdroy at the Trial) was that it would be supplied as a standard spec car. At all times it was agreed with Mr Cowdroy that we were expecting after first delivery to collect (and re-deliver) the Vehicle at our expense and take it back to the Company's factory to carry out the work of rectification that would be necessary following its inspection by the Cumbria Lake Warden. It was ALWAYS part of the arrangement that the Vehicle would be returned for such modifications as, until inspection, it was impossible to known what specific regulations it had to pass. This is evidenced in court with e-mail communications in December 2005 and January 2006 with Mr Cowdroy. Factory contact was made with the Cumbria Council Warden at Lake Windermere prior to delivery of the Vehicle in an attempt to check requirements but due to their unhelpfulness they refused to advise what regulations the vehicle may or may not have to comply with - their only response was that the craft had to be submitted for inspection and modified to suit. In order to accommodate 7/8 people with sufficient leg room a standard 4/5 seater Dutton Commander would need to be extended by 3 ft. Prior to Mr Cowdroy ordering a car he was shown a 3 ft longer Dutton that was in our factory for that very purpose, however he instructed us that the length must only be increased by 2 ft otherwise the Vehicle would not fit in his garage/drive way, clearly if you are going to fit an extra seat that is 2 ft deep you will need an additional space for your legs so logic would dictate that 3 ft is the correct increase in length. It has always been accepted by both parties that the Vehicle would required modification in some areas (entirety due because of the Lake wardens refusal to off any help) but there were no modifications required which could not have been satisfactorily dealt with within a period of a maximum of 2 days. | |
THE COURT CASEThe amphibious vehicles known as "Duttons" have a good reputation and there were no circumstances in which we would have wanted that reputation to have been damaged through the supply of an amphibious vehicle that was not suitable for use on land and water. Had we been given the opportunity we would have ensured that everything necessary was done to ensure that any problems that a particular vehicle may have demonstrated were corrected quickly and, where appropriate, at the Company's expense. I don't see the Directors of Toyota being hauled before Carlisle Crown Court for what would appear to be serious safety issues affecting thousands of their vehicles and in respect of which it is alleged that production defects have actually been responsible for a number of serious accidents over a considerable period of time. It has never been the case that any of our vehicles have had any safety issues as a consequence of any production or inherent problems. Indeed no one was ever put in danger with the trials to which that vehicle was subjected as no safety certificate had been issued. Furthermore it was in any event sold upon the basis of needing to pass certain inspections (not disputed by Mr Cowdroy at the Trial) and we were at all times expecting to undertake further work as mentioned in more detail below. THE TRADING STANDARDS TESTSOn 29 January 2008 ( some 3 years after the vehicle was delivered) the Vehicle was eventually tested by Cumbria Trading Standards. It was obviously important that such tests were correctly carried out which it patently was not for the following reasons (conceded by the Prosecution at Trial):
| |
 | |
Here you can see where the prosecution had tampered with the courts main exhibit to obtain a conviction by deliberately draining out all 20 gallons (100L) of fuel (usually contained very low in the hull) and placing it ABOVE the fuel tank. This fuel weighs 100Kg and by raising it so high will have a considerable effect on stability, it's really the difference between sitting in a canoe and trying to stand up in one.
| |
|
Notwithstanding the (admitted by the prosecution) incorrect test procedures, evidence based upon such test and of a detrimental nature as far as the performance of the Vehicle concerned was nevertheless put to the jury at the Trial. During the course of the Trial, after the Prosecution opening, the Jurors went on a site visit to see the Vehicle being driven on water. Such a test was of great importance and would have had a major bearing upon the minds of the Jurors in terms of their deliberations and ultimate decision upon our guilt or otherwise. Notwithstanding prior agreement between the Prosecution and the Defence as to the parameters and nature of the test, the following incorrect procedures were then adopted during the test:
The Jurors present at the water test witnessed the vehicle not performing well due to the way in which the "demonstration" of it was conducted. Furthermore when it was brought back to land the bilge pumps were switched on and, because they had not been switched on whilst the Vehicle was in the water, pumped out more water than would normally have been the case adding to the Jurors' bad impressions of the Vehicle. An outrageous "guess" was made that 18 gallons of water was pumped out but no measurement was ever taken. Even more importantly no check was done as to whether there was any water (e.g. rain water) in the hull prior to the commencement of the test so the result was meaningless. As a consequence of the demonstration being conducted improperly as mentioned the Vehicle had no possibility of coming through with flying colours, although it did actually perform as designed. It has subsequently been suggested that the Jurors would have been perfectly able to use their imagination as to how the Vehicle might have performed had it not been 25% overloaded. In our submission this suggestion was quite ludicrous and about as logical as asking a layman to estimate how much longer a runway would need to be for a jumbo jet which was 25% overloaded to take off - and of course that is a trick question because if an aircraft is overloaded 25% it would crash at the end of the runway On one day of the Trial the overweight firemen who were passengers in the Vehicle during the test at which the Jury were present attended the Trial. Two of them gave evidence but the others (whilst not in the witness box and under oath and available for cross-examination) were asked whether they concurred with the evidence given by the other firemen. Allowing permission to appeal on this ground (as well as on other grounds) Lord Justice Moses in the Royal Courts of Justice in London commented that "It must have seemed particularly unfair to the Defendant, watching this bizarre procedure take place whereby evidence is called by way of unanimous acclamation". In court the jury were quite rightly shown video of the January 2008 test, however as there was background comments on the video that had no real bearing to the case it was specifically agreed between the Judge, prosecution and defence barristers that the tape would be played with the sound off. The tape was played and I could lip read the judge as he lent forward and told the clerk to "put the volume up" contrary to what he had already agreed - so much for his word | |
IN CONCLUSIONThe Trial was a complete "one-off". The prosecution should never in our view have been brought. It has benefited nobody. In terms of their costs the Prosecution were awarded a figure which could reasonably be termed derisory (£2,000 awarded of £54,235 claimed). All council tax payers in Cumbria having to pay extra to cover the Trading Standards £52,235 loss. Mr Cowdroy attempted in court to fraudulently reclaim VAT back twice even though we had evidence from Her Majesties Revenue & Customs that he had already been re-paid, an embarrassed prosecution barrister had to come back to court the following day and "amend" the claim, not only was the VAT claim dropped but to everyone's surprise all the other "expenses" claimed were mysteriously "removed" as well………. The Vehicle was, at the request of the Buyer, not built to the length we recommended. Nevertheless the Vehicle could at the time (and still could) quite easily be modified for the purpose intended, and, no finding of guilt would ever have been made had the Vehicle been subjected to proper tests and had the Trial itself been properly conducted in all respects. To put matters into perspective we have designed over 25 different models of car, built 8,000 vehicles in the last 41 years. The Trial and the evidence of the Claimant in this case relates to problems with one vehicle. Even then they were not insurmountable problems which could have been sensibly resolved and which we were more than happy to resolve And lets not forget most importantly that the prosecution admitted in court that the vehicle did not have to comply with either the SVA or ISO tests yet they tested the vehicle anyway | |
THE FUTUREThis matter is nowhere near finished as far as we are concerned. There are still options open to us. The case was riddled with errors - procedural and factual so just for now let's leave the final comment to Lord Justice Moses in the Royal Courts of Justice in London as part of his summing up: We turn then to a further matter that does give us more concern. As we have indicated, firemen were used to imitate passengers on the vessel. Two of the firemen gave evidence before the jury but the judge proposed that the other firemen (at least some five others) should also be present in the courtroom. There is some dispute between the prosecution and defence whether they were in the public gallery or not. Two firemen were called to the witness-box to give evidence, Mr Tatlock and Mr Leather, the other remained close by. When Mr Tadlock and Mr Leather had finished their adverse evidence as to the stability of the vehicle, the judge, in the presence of the jury, asked the remaining firemen whether they were all of the same opinion. They spoke with one voice, saying that they were. Thereafter the defence asked one of the officers, an Officer Steadman should be called to. He gave evidence that the vessel did not appear to him to threaten to overturn and he thought he could extricate himself safely in an emergency. He did not feel that the stability of the vessel was ever compromised. The learned judge, at the conclusion of that evidence, then asked the jury whether they had any questions for the firemen and one of the jurors called out that they would like to know how the firemen would have felt on a longer trip. The fireman responded in a manner adverse to the defence, not surprisingly. This procedure should never have occurred. It hardly needs saying, let alone emphasis, that to obtain evidence other than from a single witness in the witness-box, or according to the rules from some document is not permissible. The suggestion of the judge, without seeking any agreement from defence counsel, who was in no position to agree, was quite wrong. The defence could not protest, since the jury were there and any protest was merely likely to look as though the defence were improperly trying to protect its own interests. We asked the prosecution why they did not object to this wholly unorthodox and impermissible procedure. It was an ideal opportunity for prosecuting counsel to act in the way in which all prosecuting counsel no doubt feel bound, namely to protect the defence from unfairness from the judge. He could have asked for the jury to leave the court so that any forceful submissions to the judge should not embarrass him in front of the jury and then told the judge that such a procedure was unacceptable. We do not make any personal criticism of Mr Haworth (prosecution barrister), who no doubt was equally surprised and startled at the procedure which the judge sought to adopt. That would, with hindsight, have been one remedy that would have avoided this very unfortunate consequence. It must have seemed particularly unfair to the defendant, watching this bizarre procedure take place whereby evidence is called by unanimous acclamation. | |