Driving disqualification developments
Yesterday I was interested to come across a media story that, following a Freedom of Information Act request from the Press Association, the DVLA has revealed that some 8,632 UK motorists who have amassed 12 points on their driving licences for either speeding and/or drunk-driving offences – and should therefore have faced disqualification for at least six months – have been excused this penalty because they have persuaded their presiding magistrates or similar court that they have “extenuating circumstances”, which can include supposed “financial hardship”.
See here for a report by Rob Hull on the development as appears today upon the website of the – DAILY MAIL
It just so happens that one of the Rust’s regular contributors is currently serving a six month driving disqualification for his achievement of amassing 12 points composed entirely of speeding offences – he shall remain anonymous, but let me just use the initials “WB” when I refer to him here.
My comments today concern certain aspects of this situation.
Whether you believe him or not, WB maintains that – in the scheme of things – he is an deliberately singled-out motorist who appears to have been subjected to a campaign by the Government to persecute recidivist “speeders” unfairly.
He claims to be a careful driver from a generation that has never paid much attention to speed limit signs and that in reality his “crime” is to be “over a certain age”.
He cites in support of this contention the fact that the overwhelming majority of his offences involve situations in which he was found to have been driving 6mph or less over the speed limit sign involved.
Possibly with his tongue firmly in his cheek, he claims that he is a careful and responsible driver who keeps his eye constantly scanning the road in front of him.
He then also scrutinises the vehicles in his vicinity, the side-roads from which idiots in other vehicles might suddenly without warning drive onto the main road without and care or attention and hit his car amidships, and (lastly) any unobservant pedestrians aged 18 months upwards who might stagger out into his lane in ludicrous attempts to cross the road where they shouldn’t, in order to take avoiding action if he should need to.
In these circumstances, in his opinion, uncoupling himself from this very necessary task simply in order to check what the speed limit happens to be in place anywhere along the way – a move that would obviously risk him losing his concentration high-alert, all-out, concentration designed to prevent accidents, injuries and death – is just one multi-task too far.
In one of his posts to this organ, WB mentioned that he had spoken to a serving magistrate who told him that in potential “driving disqualification” cases – when it comes to the issue of “mitigation”, including any “financial hardship” that a disqualification might potentially cause, as mentioned in today’s media reports – the entire process is pointless (to coin a phrase)..
Although the principle of mitigation is part of the bedrock of the British judicial system and requires in such motoring cases that the defendant appears in person to make his plea to the bench, in fact the procedure is a farce.
How so? Because the “guidelines” issued to magistrates hearing such cases is that – whatever mitigation is submitted and however compelling or believable it might be – it must have no influence upon the sentence being meted out.
In other words, if a motorist acquires 12 points on their licence, disqualification should be inevitable.
How that “squares” with the media reports today that some 8,632 motorists have be spared disqualification – and mostly by pleading the “exceptional hardship” that such a sentence would inflict – I know not.
