The magistrates are required not to let you avoid having your licence revoked by giving you a ban. For 61 in a 30 at least 6 points, and thus licence revocation, are am almost certainty.
Otherwise, morris-man is correct, magistrates are required not to let offenders avoid revocation by issuing a disqualification.
That's not quite correct.
Magistrates are not
required (i.e. by law) to impose points. However they are advised that to impose a disqualification when it might not otherwise be imposed would normally be inappropriate as it would circumvent the intention of Parliament:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/8-new-drivers/"An offender liable for an endorsement which will cause the licence to be revoked under the new drivers’ provisions may ask the court to disqualify rather than impose points. This will avoid the requirement to take a further test. Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament."This is similar to the situation where a driver faces a "totting up" ban and asks the court to impose a disqualification instead. However, the guidance in that case is very much more assertive:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/3-totting-up-disqualification/"The court should first consider the circumstances of the offence, and determine whether the offence should attract a discretionary period of disqualification. But the court must note the statutory obligation to disqualify those repeat offenders who would, were penalty points imposed, be liable to the mandatory “totting” disqualification and, unless the court is of the view that the offence should be marked by a period of discretionary disqualification in excess of the minimum totting up disqualification period, the court should impose penalty points rather than discretionary disqualification so that the minimum totting up disqualification period applies."In the case of "totting up", the guidance is quite clear: unless a discretionary ban will be longer than the totting up ban would be, then points should be imposed and the driver liable to a totting up ban.
However, with the New Driver's legislation it is not so prescriptive. It simply informs Magistrates to avoid circumventing the will of Parliament. It would be trickier to be as prescriptive because there is no disqualification periods involved to make a comparison.
However, in neither case are Magistrates required to impose points. They always have discretion if they believe it is justified.
In this particular case, 61 in a 30mph limit is well into disqualification territory. The guidelines for 51mph and over suggest either a ban of up to 56 days or 6 points. When dealing with a "new Driver" and faced with this choice, it may seem confusing and it is a question, I am sure, causes some Magistrates an amount of angst. Normally a ban is seen as a more severe than points and in the case of a driver facing "totting up" it is clear that, from the guidance, a ban of at least six months (by way of either the discretionary or totting up variety) would be the outcome. In most cases, since a discretionary ban for a single offence of more than six months is seldom appropriate, points would be the answer.
But the same cannot be said when a New Driver is involved because the sanction for the driver (that of licence revocation) would, perversely some might think, involve less serious consequences if the harsher penalty was imposed. In my view, this cannot be what Parliament intended and I believe that courts should adopt he same principle as that advised when a driver faces a totting up ban: i.e. that points should be imposed so that the driver faces revocation.
This dichotomy stems from what I believe is a deficiency in the New Drivers' Act. It should include a provision such that it also applies to drivers who are subject to a ban for a single offence. However, that is perhaps Flame Pit territory.
Magistrates always have discretion to allow a driver to avoid revocation if they believe it is justified. They can impose fewer than six points (if the offence allows it) or they can impose a short ban. They have further guidance which says this. Page 22 here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Adult-Court-Bench-Book-May-2023.pdf"The court should consider the impact that ordering six or more points will have on a new driver. Ordering less than six points or a disqualification will not lead to a DVLA revocation of the driving licence."This seems somewhat at odds with the guidance I provided above, but it demonstrates that Magistrates do have that discretion.
As above, I would be very wary of any solicitor who wants £3k for what is, at most, half a day of his time. At least he has only said you "may have a chance" rather than putting it any stronger than that. Make the argument yourself and if it fails, for considerably less than £3k you can secure a driving test at reasonably short notice by using the services of one of the "brokers" who hoover them up using bots to block book the appointments.
