sjpn for No insurance - will loose licence

[HandyAndy]

..the cps actually said my basis of plea had nothing to do with the facts.

I have to say I find that an absolutely astonishing statement to come from a lawyer.. "The facts" are at the very heart of a basis of plea. You disputed the alleged facts and you believed it would have a significant influence on sentencing. So you offered a version of facts on which you based your guilty plea. It really ain't that difficult to grasp.. Perhaps the CPS lawyer was enquiring whether you had a legal background so that he could tap you for bit of advice!

But seriously, it is no joke.

I'm also baffled as to why the court concentrated on the medical emergency. You only reason you mentioned it was to provide a possible explanation for the mistake with the insurance start time, not to explain why you were driving at all.

I'm sorry, hari, but you seem to have been on the wrong end of a seriously poor performance by the court. I said in one of my final posts (#108) that nothing is guaranteed. The Magistrates have to make a decision and they cannot see both parties satisfied. But I also hoped that you would receive a fair hearing. From what you say I don't think you did. Of course the prosecutor's job is to prosecute, but they have a responsibility to understand basic court procedures and this one's statement about a basis of plea demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding

Our resident magistrate, islandgirl, grasped the issue easily and succinctly. It's a great pity you were not in her court. At least you would have had a fair crack of the whip.

[harimalone]

I have to say I find that an absolutely astonishing statement to come from a lawyer.. "The facts" are at the very heart of a basis of plea. You disputed the alleged facts and you believed it would have a significant influence on sentencing. So you offered a version of facts on which you based your guilty plea. It really ain't that difficult to grasp.. Perhaps the CPS lawyer was enquiring whether you had a legal background so that he could tap you for bit of advice!

But seriously, it is no joke.

I'm also baffled as to why the court concentrated on the medical emergency. You only reason you mentioned it was to provide a possible explanation for the mistake with the insurance start time, not to explain why you were driving at all.

I'm sorry, hari, but you seem to have been on the wrong end of a seriously poor performance by the court. I said in one of my final posts (#108) that nothing is guaranteed. The Magistrates have to make a decision and they cannot see both parties satisfied. But I also hoped that you would receive a fair hearing. From what you say I don't think you did. Of course the prosecutor's job is to prosecute, but they have a responsibility to understand basic court procedures and this one's statement about a basis of plea demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding

Our resident magistrate, islandgirl, grasped the issue easily and succinctly. It's a great pity you were not in her court. At least you would have had a fair crack of the whip.

to be honest with you the main magistrate seemed to be one guy in the middle and the rest were quiet. When I told him about my special reasons case first thing he said was I’m sorry but you’re not providing us with an insurance that covers 12:15 so you are guilty. Only untill the legal adviser explained. I do feel hard done by but based on ur info I knew it was 50/50.

one other Q, I’d points going on licence from date of crime or date of conviction

[HandyAndy]

Only the magistrate in the middle speaks in court, so that's not unusual. It's good that the LA put them straight but as I'm sure islandgirl will confirm, the Bench should have been made aware beforehand what it was they were dealing with.

Anyway, alas what's done is done. It is he date of he offence which counts for the points, They count for "totting up" for three years from that date. You should note any more points before your first lot drop off will see you tot up again and you cannot make another EH argument using he same reasons as your recent successful one for three years from the date this week's hearing.

[harimalone]

Only the magistrate in the middle speaks in court, so that's not unusual. It's good that the LA put them straight but as I'm sure islandgirl will confirm, the Bench should have been made aware beforehand what it was hey were dealing with.

Anyway, alas what's done is done. It is he date of he offence which counts for the points, They count for "totting up" for three years from that date. You should note any more points before your first lot drop off will see you tot up again and you cannot make another EH argument using he same reasons as your recent successful one for three years from the date this week's hearing.

Yep that's what they told me in court, my first set will be dropping off this October - so I will be down to 9 points. Assuming another 3 until I get down to 6 points, will result in totting up straight away?

[HandyAndy]

Assuming another 3 until I get down to 6 points, will result in totting up straight away?

Yup, afraid so.

[harimalone]

Yup, afraid so.

Cool very challenging 1 year of driving ahead of me. Also for future reference for the EH plea the magistrates will ensure that every possible avenue is reviewed. I.e public transport regardless if your travel time is extended by many hours.

[HandyAndy]

Also for future reference for the EH plea the magistrates will ensure that every possible avenue is reviewed. I.e public transport regardless if your travel time is extended by many hours.

In short, they are advised to be "robust". I'm not sure whether I posted it previously, but about seven or eight years ago, Magistrates were issued with "reminding" guidance to use when dealing with EH arguments. It was thought that courts had become too lenient and that too many EH arguments were succeeding. This is what they use:

When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:

It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.

Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence;

Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.

If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.

Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable;

Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.

Like many things, the interpretation of "Exceptional Hardship" is very subjective and an EH argument might well succeed before one Bench, but an identical one fail before another. That is the nature of the beast.

Something else to bear in mind is that the facility to make an EH argument only exists for "totting up" bans. It is not available for mandatory bans (e.g. excess alcohol, dangerous driving) nor can one be made where the court has decided a discretionary ban for a single offence is appropriate. The court can order a discretionary ban for any offence which attracts an endorsement and points and in fact has the power to impose driving bans for any criminal offence - whether motoring or not - if it sees fit..

or completeness, the court has no discretion over the revocation of a driver's licence under the "New Drivers' Act" (six points within two years of passing the first test). This is an administrative action taken by the DVLA, not a judicial decision taken by the court. When learning that such a driver has accumulated six points the DVLA must, by law, revoke the licence meaning the driver must take his test again.

[harimalone]

In short, they are advised to be "robust". I'm not sure whether I posted it previously, but about seven or eight years ago, Magistrates were issued with "reminding" guidance to use when dealing with EH arguments. It was thought that courts had become too lenient and that too many EH arguments were succeeding. This is what they use:

When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:

It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.

Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence;

Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.

If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.

Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable;

Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.

Like many things, the interpretation of "Exceptional Hardship" is very subjective and an EH argument might well succeed before one Bench, but an identical one fail before another. That is the nature of the beast.

Something else to bear in mind is that the facility to make an EH argument only exists for "totting up" bans. It is not available for mandatory bans (e.g. excess alcohol, dangerous driving) nor can one be made where the court has decided a discretionary ban for a single offence is appropriate. The court can order a discretionary ban for any offence which attracts an endorsement and points and in fact has the power to impose driving bans for any criminal offence - whether motoring or not - if it sees fit..

or completeness, the court has no discretion over the revocation of a driver's licence under the "New Drivers' Act" (six points within two years of passing the first test). This is an administrative action taken by the DVLA, not a judicial decision taken by the court. When learning that such a driver has accumulated six points the DVLA must, by law, revoke the licence meaning the driver must take his test again.

Exactly - also I failed to mention. The legal advisor brought up similar cases before the worships were going to decide my SR plea, one example of a uninsured driver who had to rush home without insurance because his partner called him and said she was going to commit suicide (via tablets) which didn't get accepted as he could of called 999. Once the worships heard this I believe it pretty much sealed my fate - despite my case being a live emergency they said I should of called emergency services instead or used other alternatives. Anywho - thanks and best of luck with everything.

[islandgirl]

Out of curiousity did the bench retire to consider? I would certainly have done so as this was a complex case. Public transport options are of course considered although we don't get out the timetables of course! My bench once refused one from a super rich professional (part of whose SR argument was his kids would have to miss sports club at their exclusive private school) who said he would have to "get a bus" as though it was the worst thing in the world. Their barrister stood up and said "I will appeal" when refused - wonder if they did!