|
So long as you are able to speak reasonably well there is no need to employ a solicitor. The court wants to hear what hardship you will suffer, not anything "legalese".
That said, the argument you must make is not simply that hardship will follow if you are banned. It has to be "Exceptional Hardship" (EH). Anybody who is banned will suffer hardship of some sort. That's the punishment element of the ban. Similarly anybody who needs to drive either to get to or perform their work will suffer hardship so losing your job, by itself, is not exceptional. A few months ago Magistrates were reminded of this as it was felt that far too many EH arguments were succeeding when they were often without merit. Their latest guidance says this:
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.
* The civil standard of proof is on "the balance of probabilities - that is, more likely to be true than not.
** "Sworn" means you will be required to swear an Oath or make a non-religious "Affirmation" to tell the truth. You will commit perjury if you lie whilst under Oath or Affirmation.
It is usually accepted by most courts that hardship that others may suffer carries more weight than hardship to the errant driver. But that can only work up to a point. What you've said essentially boils down to two things: you will lose your job because you won't be able to get there and you will not be able to visit your children quite so much as you might if you were able to drive. The first, as you can see from above, is unlikely to cut the mustard. If you are going to include it you will firstly have to show that it is true by explaining the travel alternatives are impractical or impossible (not merely that they are inconvenient). As far as visiting your children goes, you will have to explain why there is no suitable alternative at a reasonable cost. For example, have you considered a coach instead of a train; how often do you visit; how old your children are, all that sort of thing. You need to be prepared for some close questioning because Magistrates are less willing to accept an EH argument than they may have been six months ago.
Personally, based on what you have said, I think you will need a particularly sympathetic Bench to see your argument succeed.
If you feel uncomfortable speaking in court you can type what you want to say and let the Magistrates read it, but you must still be prepared to answer questions. Take five copies - one for each of the three Magistrates, one for the prosecutor and one for the court's legal advisor. Do likewise for any documentary evidence you want them to see.
Hope this helps.
Edited by Middleman on 09/04/2021 at 16:33
|
