Offence: Speeding / Totting up penalty points

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar represented Mr S before Northallerton Magistrates Court in respect of totting up 12 penalty points or more, whereby Mr S faced a minimum period of disqualification of 6 months under the totting up provisions. At the time of this further offence Mr S already had 10 penalty points on his driving licence. The Court imposed a further 3 points and therefore he now had 13 points on his driving licence.

Carl advanced exceptional hardship explaining the consequences of disqualification would mean that his position of employment would become untenable. The collateral damage following on from this would be that there potentially could be a loss of jobs to other employees in his place of work due to the nature of his job. Mr S worked as a contracts manager for a shop fitting company in various locations up and down the country.

Mr S’s house was subject to a mortgage and he had three children. His partner did not work and his family relied solely on his income. The impact of a disqualification and subsequent loss of job would mean that his partner and children could potentially be made homeless if his house were to be repossessed. Thankfully, exceptional hardship was found in the circumstances.

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr E, who faced a disqualification period of up to 56 days for travelling at 108mph in a 70mph speed restriction area.

Mitigation was presented to the Court in an effort to try and persuade them to not disqualify at all and, instead, give Mr E penalty points. The Court were persuaded by the argument and imposed 6 penalty points instead of a driving ban. Mr E required his car to commute to the salon that he works, and also to convey his equipment with him. The court accepted the arguments put forward and Mr E was delighted that he was not disqualified.

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr H, who was travelling at twice the speed limit, at 63mph in a 30mph speed restriction area. Mr H was very concerned about being disqualified. The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of up to 56 days where the speed is between 51-60mph. Mr H was literally off the scales and therefore was concerned.

Powerful mitigation was presented at Court and the Magistrates accepted the argument and imposed 6 penalty points instead of a period of disqualification.

It was advanced on Mr H’s behalf that he appreciated that the speed he was travelling at was unacceptable. However, any period of disqualification would have been disastrous to him, his business and his family.

Offence: Totting up 12 penalty points on driving licence

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr I, who faced disqualification for a minimum period of six months under the totting up provisions.

Exceptional hardship was advanced on Mr I’s behalf and the Court were persuaded by the arguments. In the circumstances, they did not disqualify him at all from driving.

Mr I was concerned about being disqualified from driving and the impact that this would have upon his business. He had real concerns that the company that he owned would go into liquidation and that he would have to make staff redundant. He was concerned about the collateral damage following on from that, and also concerned that he would not be able to meet his mortgage payments as he did not have any savings to fall back on.

The Court were persuaded by the arguments put forward by Millars Solicitors and he was not disqualified from driving under the totting up provisions.

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr N who faced disqualification for a minimum period of 56 days.

Mr N was travelling at 112mph in a 70mph speed restriction area. The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of up to 56 days where the speed is up to 110mph. Unfortunately, Mr N was literally off the scales, even in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

Powerful mitigation was presented by Messrs Millars Solicitors about the impact of a substantial period of disqualification upon Mr N and his family.

It was advanced that it would have been difficult for Mr N to travel to work and to continue with his voluntary work with the boy scouts. Mr N found himself in the criminal justice system for the first time in his life and was entirely embarrassed. The Court recognised his remorse and limited the period of disqualification to 14 days in the circumstances. Naturally, Mr N was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Failing to Stop, Failing to Report and Driving without Due Care and Attention / Careless Driving

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr O’H who faced disqualification as a result of two separate offences of failing to stop, failing to report and driving without due care and attention / careless driving.

Regarding the incident, Mr O’H had reversed into another vehicle and caused damage to that vehicle.
The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest the imposition of 3-9 penalty points for driving without due care and attention, or a period of disqualification. For failing to stop, the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest the imposition of between 5-10 penalty points endorsed on a driving licence, or a disqualification. For failing to report, the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest the imposition of between 5-10 penalty points, or a disqualification.

We argued the totality principle as all three offences arose out of one event. The Court were persuaded by this argument and imposed the minimum amount of points in the circumstances, which was 5 penalty points.

Naturally, Mr O’H was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Totting up 12 penalty points on driving licence

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar from Keep My Driving Licence part of Millar’s Solicitors was instructed by Mr W who faced disqualification for a minimum period of six months under the totting up provisions.

Mr W pleaded guilty to using a handheld mobile telephone. At the time of the incident, he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence. The Court gave him a further 6 penalty points for the offence of using a handheld mobile telephone, and he was now therefore a “totter”.

Powerful mitigation was advanced on behalf of Mr W. In short, a period of disqualification for six months would have meant that his position of employment would be untenable. This would have a significant impact upon his wife and children who were dependant on his income in order to put a roof over their heads. There were real concerns for Mr W that his house may be repossessed.

Another argument undertaken was that Mr W was an electrician working for the local authority in his area. We advanced exceptional hardship to the general public at large.

We relied upon the case of Cornwall v Coke. In that case, the defendant’s appeal was allowed and Judge Lee stated that hardship to the public is a mitigating circumstance, and indeed is a rather stronger mitigation than hardship to the offender, and that therefore the Magistrates did have a discretion to not disqualify in the circumstances.

Mr W was not disqualified and was naturally delighted.

Place: Carlisle Magistrates Court

Offence: Speeding / Totting Up 12 penalty points on driving licence

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar represented Mr H before Carlisle Magistrates Court.

Mr H had accumulated 12 penalty points on his driving licence due to a series of speeding matters.

Mr H was very concerned about being disqualified from driving for the minimum period of six months.  This would have resulted in the loss of his job and the collateral damage would mean that he would no longer be able to maintain his mortgage payments.

Mr H was also concerned about obtaining gainful employment after the driving disqualification ended as he was near retirement age.  The Court also considered the impact upon Mr H’s wife as she would also face being made homeless through no fault of her own.

The Court accepted the argument presented by Carl Millar and exercised their discretion to not disqualify Mr H in the circumstances.

An uninsured drink driver, who ended up driving on tram tracks and causing £6,000 of damage to his week old Mercedes Benz, has received a 17 month driving ban.

The drink driver, Maurice Cooney, had to raise the alarm at a nearby office after his car was stranded on the Midland Metro tram tracks.

His stranded car caused some 5 hours worth of delays for commuters whilst the problem was taken care of.

Cooney was breathalysed when police arrived and he gave a reading of 86mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The current legal limit in England and Wales is 35mg.

At Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, Cooney admitted to drink driving, driving without insurance and causing a danger or inconvenience.

The court heard that Cooney had been drinking the night before the incident, but thought he was okay to drive.

Commenting on the case, Pc Lee Byrne, of British Transport Police, said: “With the party season just around the corner, this is a timely reminder about the dangers of drink-driving.

“While Cooney is extremely apologetic for his actions, there is never any excuse for getting behind the wheel while drunk and why he thought he was okay to drive despite only stopping drinking an hour beforehand beggars belief.

“On this occasion he is lucky it’s just his wallet and pride which have taken the hit. Had he driven on the tracks just an hour later when the trams were running, the consequences could have been catastrophic.”

Cooney was disqualified from driving for 17 months, fined some £246 and ordered to pay costs of £135.

A Forklift truck driver banned was caught for a 4th time drink driving has been banned from the road for 40 months.

The incident began when 27 year old Gary Prescott was seen driving erratically in the early hours of a Sunday morning.

Prescott was stopped by the police who noted that his speech was slurred and he smelled of alcohol. He was breathalysed and gave a reading of 54mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The current legal limit for drink driving in England and Wales is 35mg.

Appearing in court and admitting the offence of drink driving, the Magistrates heard that Prescott had been drinking with his girlfriend until around 10pm the previous night and went to bed.

He was woken at around 2.30 in the morning by a friend who said that his grandmother had fallen and needed help.

Prescott thought that as he had stopped drinking some time before he would be okay and agreed to drive his friend back to his grandmother’s house.

It was during this journey that the police pulled him over.

In sentencing, the Magistrates heard that he had been convicted of drink driving 3 times before. They also heard that during the commission of these offences he had been drinking heavily owing to the death of his grandmother.

Prescott, who is in full time employment, was banned from driving for 40 months, fined £300 and ordered to pay £85 court costs.