11:02:22 by TheJusticeofthePeace
Magistrates know all about exceptional hardship as it applies to driving disqualification……….or at least they should know and if they are deficient in that department their legal advisers ought to know. However the Sunday Times in its article on this subject yesterday threw some doubt on those assumptions. As that newspaper is now behind a paywall no link can be given but I can list below the two salient facts the newspaper quotes.
I devoted my blog of May 15th to this topic. What follows is a more detailed analysis.
Legislation regarding disqualification for totters allows magistrates not to disqualify or to reduce that period only if they are satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction the most common of which put forward is the potential effect of the disqualification on the offender namely that hardship would result. Section 35{4}(b) of the RTOA 1988 precludes the court from taking into account “hardship, other than exceptional hardship”. There is no strict definition of this term.
The Sunday Times amongst other things quoted the following facts:-
31,110 drivers disqualified for reaching 12 points in 2009
11,228 is the number of drivers reaching 12 points not disqualified in 2009
Practice suggests that the loss of employment by itself is unlikely to satisfy the “exceptional” test. Some judicial guidance can be found in the Scottish case of Brennan-v-McKay (1996) 1997 S.L.T. 603. A taxi driver reached 12 penalty points on being convicted of speeding. He claimed that he would be likely to lose his job and be unable to obtain other work and this would have a substantial effect on his family. The High Court of Judiciary held that the justices were entitled to conclude that exceptional hardship had not been demonstrated. Whilst it was not an invariable rule that exceptional hardship would only be established where persons other than the accused and his immediate family would suffer it was ruled that it was necessary to demonstrate that there were other circumstances associated with loss of employment which might involve reflected hardship of a serious kind on the accused`s business, his family or his long term prospects [per Lord Hope in Brennan-v-McKay].
It is important to note that offenders may not put forward the same circumstances which have been used either for not disqualifying or for reducing the length of the totting up disqualification within three years of conviction {sec. 35(4)(c) RTOA 1988} It follows that detailed court records must be made of the exact circumstances which justified any finding of exceptional hardship.
From the above figures more than 26% of drivers accumulating 12 points were allowed to continue driving under the exceptional hardship guidance. From my own experience I find that ratio astonishing. The conclusion on the surface appears to be that misplaced application of the guidance is possibly being applied. Perhaps more formal guidance is required from our lords and masters.
I devoted my blog of May 15th to this topic. What follows is a more detailed analysis.
Legislation regarding disqualification for totters allows magistrates not to disqualify or to reduce that period only if they are satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction the most common of which put forward is the potential effect of the disqualification on the offender namely that hardship would result. Section 35{4}(b) of the RTOA 1988 precludes the court from taking into account “hardship, other than exceptional hardship”. There is no strict definition of this term.
The Sunday Times amongst other things quoted the following facts:-
31,110 drivers disqualified for reaching 12 points in 2009
11,228 is the number of drivers reaching 12 points not disqualified in 2009
Practice suggests that the loss of employment by itself is unlikely to satisfy the “exceptional” test. Some judicial guidance can be found in the Scottish case of Brennan-v-McKay (1996) 1997 S.L.T. 603. A taxi driver reached 12 penalty points on being convicted of speeding. He claimed that he would be likely to lose his job and be unable to obtain other work and this would have a substantial effect on his family. The High Court of Judiciary held that the justices were entitled to conclude that exceptional hardship had not been demonstrated. Whilst it was not an invariable rule that exceptional hardship would only be established where persons other than the accused and his immediate family would suffer it was ruled that it was necessary to demonstrate that there were other circumstances associated with loss of employment which might involve reflected hardship of a serious kind on the accused`s business, his family or his long term prospects [per Lord Hope in Brennan-v-McKay].
It is important to note that offenders may not put forward the same circumstances which have been used either for not disqualifying or for reducing the length of the totting up disqualification within three years of conviction {sec. 35(4)(c) RTOA 1988} It follows that detailed court records must be made of the exact circumstances which justified any finding of exceptional hardship.
From the above figures more than 26% of drivers accumulating 12 points were allowed to continue driving under the exceptional hardship guidance. From my own experience I find that ratio astonishing. The conclusion on the surface appears to be that misplaced application of the guidance is possibly being applied. Perhaps more formal guidance is required from our lords and masters.
No comments:
Post a Comment