Free Traffic Legal Advice

P.G. Woodhouse famously transferred adverbs to be an adjective of the object - "he smoked an nonchalant cigarette", but I suspect that even he might struggle with the concept of a court hearing being harmed.

On conviction, the court are bound* by law to order your licence to be endorsed with either 3-6 points or to ban you from driving, The court also has sentencing guidelines which they are not strictly bound by, but would need to justify deviating from. Sentencing for speeding is largely paint by numbers, although mitigation can be considered.

Their guidelines for 41-50 are 4-6 points** and  for 51+ are 6 points or a 7-56 day ban. Ordinarily, you would be almost certainly looking at 6 points. The courts have specific guidance not to issue a short ban to enable the accused to avoid a revocation under the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995.

The court could give you 5 points to enable you to avoid revocation if they considered it appropriate to do so. Whether or not they would be likely to is entirely down to them on the day.

Absent coming across as a "weapons grade Karen" and telling them that they *can't* give you 5 points as you are too important/entitled, it is difficult to see how the proposed letter would harm you case, other that it would almost certainly require an in person hearing to stand any chance of persuading the bench to step outside of the guidelines, as opposed to dealing with everything online/by post.

"I appreciate that your worships' guidance is to give me 6 points, which will result in my licence being revoked, but I would respectfully ask you to consider.."

* Absent special reasons not to endorse which concern the reason the offence was committed, not the effects of the punishment. And didn't see the sign (assuming that it was there to be seen) wouldn't cut it.

** The guidelines include the option of a 7-28 day ban for 41-50, but absent serious aggravating factors, very unlikely. Not applicable to your case anyway

Thank you two very much for your knowledge and kind replies. I wonder if, for me, asking for a ban length which the magistrates think is appropriate would be better than the points as the 'tism makes it a little more difficult for me to do things like organise tests and deal with unknown waiting times (if someone says to me 'we will meet between 8 and 10' this will send me into a spiral, I need them to say 'we will meet at 8:30' and then I will be there 30 minutes early because I have stressed myself out over being late, as an example).

I am absolutely happy to take the 6 points and re-test, but if a magistrate said 'you cannot drive for 20 days' I think this would be less stressful for me as I would have a definitive end point, even if logically I know it may be faster for me to get back on the roads if I can pass my provisional and get lucky with a cancellation for practical.

I think mostly I am worried about potentially annoying the magistrates, as I just want to go in, take my punishment and then leave and sort my life out. I don't want to be seen as trying to 'game the system' or wiggle out of things.

I will talk with my boss about it, think on matters and let folk know what happens.

...but I am not aware of any specific guidance against giving fewer points foe that purpose.

Of course you are right about the guidance concerning a ban as an alternative to points, Andy:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/8-new-drivers/

I’m not aware of any similar guidance addressing the issue of imposing fewer points than the guidance suggests. However, I think most Magistrates will be aware of the last couple of sentences of the above guidance:

“This will avoid the requirement to take a further test. Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament.”

Despite the option in the guidelines which provides for a ban, 51mph in a 30 limit is more or less a nailed on six points. It would be unusual to see a discretionary ban. So with that in mind, if the court is asked by the defendant to impose fewer than six points and it is clearly intended to avoid the consequences of the New Drivers’ Act, Magistrates should consider whether they, too, are being asked to circumvent the will of Parliament. I don’t really see any difference.

Another point worth a mention is that in imposing fewer than six points, the court would be sentencing outside the guidelines and a reason should be provided for doing so. I cannot see a Bench being prepared to announce that they are acting that way solely so as to avoid Parliament’s will.

As an update, I received my SPJN today which has made me very happy, because I feel like I can progress with this and the outcome is soon.

As I'm sure you guys already know, I have the option to plead not guilty, guilty and request a court hearing or guilty and not request a court hearing.

I am going to fill out the form and plead guilty - no court hearing and include my boss' letter in the pack and send it all back on Monday so I can snaffle an envelope at work.