I also wondered if the close proximity time wise of the two offences could give argument that she did not have the usual opportunity to further modify her driving behaviour once she had reached 9 points as most do?
No. Competent drivers are expected to know the law and not have it pointed ut to them by the imposition of points after they have committed offences. The logical conclusion to that argument would be that it is OK to speed when you have three points, but not so when you have nine.
In any case, how the points were accumulated must have not bearing on an EH argument. She has he basis for a successful argument but she will have o satisfy the court that she has explored all alternative options to overcome her problems which do not involve driving, and explain why she has found them impossible/impractical or whatever.
She should also bear in mind that if her argument is successful she will leave the court with twelve points and she cannot make another EH argument using the same reasons within three years.
Here's the guidance which Magistrates use when hearing an EH argument.
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.
