Appeals from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court are heard “de novo”, which means afresh, from scratch. So you do not have to put forward the same argument as you did in the magistrates’’ court.
One thing to bear in mind if you do appeal to the Crown Court is that your appeal will be heard by a judge and two magistrates (from a different Bench to the one where you were disqualified). The judge rules on matters of law but all three decide on matters of fact (on which your appeal will be entirely based)..
This means the two magistrates can outvote the judge. Furthermore, judges do not deal with “exceptional hardship” arguments very often, whereas the magistrates do. The judge may not have the same “feel” for the argument as the magistrates.
As above, you should beware of lawyers who suggest you have a good chance of success. They get paid regardless.
The only hardship you have mentioned is that you will lose your job. Here’s the guidance which magistrates (and the Crown Court) use when deciding EH arguments:
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.
You will note from the final paragraph that losing your job, by itself, is unlikely to see a successful EH plea. I don’t know whether your barrister mentioned that to you when you discussed your case. Another thing which magistrates consider for those claiming hardship through loss of employment is mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier. Many take the view that if driving is so essential, why did the defendant continue to offend, knowing that his licence was in jeopardy?
Previous experiences are not much help with this issue because every case turns individually on its merits. But you should also be aware that an appeal will see you further out of pocket as your barrister will want paying, win or lose. If you are unsuccessful, the CPS will ask for more costs, possibly in eh region of £700.