Exceptional hardship hearing

[frankofile]

This week my husband had to attend court on a speeding charge. He already has 9 points so was reconciled to a driving ban, but the magistrate has offered the option of another hearing for exceptional hardship, as my husband will not be able to continue at his current job if banned. My question is this; is he likely to get a larger fine as a trade off if he keeps his licence

[Ethel]

Yes.

[New Judge]

If the magistrates adopt the �structured approach� to sentencing as suggested by their guidelines, the two decisions should be independent.

The suggested fine (and number of points) for speeding varies according to the excess speed alleged and will take account of any other factors surrounding the offence itself (e.g. the prevailing conditions). It will also take account of the offender�s previous record.

The �exceptional hardship� argument is based around the circumstances that the offender will find himself in as a result of being banned through �totting up�. It will take account of the effect the ban will have upon him and others.

These two decisions should be taken separately and some magistrates will sentence for the speeding first and only then hear the hardship argument if necessary.

It is not easy to succeed with an exceptional hardship argument. As the title suggests the hardship has to be exceptional. Usually loss of employment alone is not a sufficient reason. Large numbers of people need to drive to earn a living and the hardship suffered as a result by them is by no means exceptional. Indeed many magistrates take the view that such a person should be extra vigilant when driving so as to avoid them being in such a situation.

[LAW_DROP-OUT]

he may have to pay court costs twice , like �45 each hearing x 2 .... - he may be given 3 points for the speeding offence , which takes him up as we all know to 12 points ,,,,, hopefully , he will be allowed to continue to drive , on the "12 points threshold " .......... he shouldnt really recieve a LARGER FINE < because of the - TRADE OFF " ( iwas in court once and i saw someone given 3 points , and a fine of over �280 plus costs , which i thought was excessive ,,,,although the defendant was clocked at over 70 mph , on a fifty limit area ) ..so the fine if any is give for speeding , may be reflected on how many mph he was over the limit ....... i mean if he was doing 37 mph , in a 30 limit , then even a �175 fine , plus costs in my opinion woulf be excessive ...... ive used the �175 , as a random example ....... maybe 3 years should soon be up for any of his current , endorsments which have put him on 9 points ...

[New Judge]

Just a couple of points arising from LAW_DROP_OUT�s post.

He will not be liable for two lots of costs. Prosecution costs are claimed on a �per file� basis and are not dependent upon the number of hearings or appearances.

I�m not sure of the relevance of �three years being up soon�. It is the date of the offences that count for the purposes of �totting up�. If the offences are within three years then a totting up ban is applicable.