75ZT Community

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-36896055

Now magistrates can decide not to impose a ban if it causes hardship and 212 drivers still have their licences with one having 27 points. Is this a little skewed? Should the drivers be thinking 'I must not break the Law because I need my licence' rather than thinking 'I will continue breaking the Law, give the magistrate a sob story and keep my licence'.

Magistrates have had that power since Pontious was a pilot Paul.

But Paul surely the onus should be on the driver not to break the law especially if losing their licence is going to cause hardship - it is their actions that are causing them problems and dependent upon what they have been found guilty of other drivers and the general public problems.

I didn't venture an opinion of course Paul, just said it has always been within the power of the Bench.

Usual cases of someone knowing all of their rights but not exercising their responsibilities.

Bermudan 75 wrote:Usual cases of someone knowing all of their rights but not exercising their responsibilities.

I agree that there is a continuing increase in this sort of attitude in general Mike, but not, I think, in these specific instances.

Remember an ex-colleague saying to me:

'I will have to be careful now I have 9 points on my licence' - 3 x speeding offences. Seems some people are given too many chances.

Paul I respect your discretion but from your comment presume without knowing the facts it is difficult to have an opinion.

Opinions are fine Paul and I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise

What I would say is that some of you have met me and hopefully are reassured that, in my Court, nobody gets a free ride There is no right for any defendant to avoid disqualification owing to exceptional hardship. It is totally at the discretion of the examining Bench and is extremely difficult to obtain such a result.

Without giving too much away, exceptional hardship is usually accepted if it would be imposed upon another, innocent individual, for example, somebody who requires regular and difficult trips to hospital and the defendant is their only (realistic) means of getting there. Even then, the defendant's word, even under oath or affirmation, counts for very little and documentary evidence is required, which, in itself, would be sujbect to careful scrutiny by the examining Bench.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that media journalism is, of necessity, sensationalist and they never tell the whole story. Please, take it from me that Magistrates up and down the country, are not quite as naive as the media would have you believe

Ooops. I didn't intend to bring this thread to a halt What I said above is just my own opinion

Paul, you may not wish to answer but I will ask anyway:

How to you balance the need to punish am offender v an innocent party relying on the offender and if there is not going to be a ban is the financial penalty, i.e. fine increased and / or community work.

And yes, I appreciate there are lies, damn lies and the media

I don't have a problem answering questions Paul. I sometimes despair of people who bury their heads in the sand as it were, even when facing very serious charges, leaving it all to their legal advisor without trying to understand the process and I'm happy to dispel the myths that the media would have us believe at any time

If I had my way, every senior school pupil would spend a few days observing in a Court. Do you know that there are some who don't even know what a Magistrate is?

Anyway.

Disqualification or points are two possible ancillary orders to a sentence Paul. There are others. The sentence is decided upon giving consideration to the seriousness of the offence, previous record, whether commited on bail etc. and then any ancillary orders considered next.

It would clearly be unethical and contrary to the interests of justice to increase the severity of a sentence as the result of a successful "Exceptional hardship" application.