“Mikey” is a little misleading.
He said “She has the option to plead Exceptional Hardship which would change the revocation of her licence potentially to a disqualification. The Magistrates gave her a one month disqualification.”
That is incorrect.
A formal “exceptional hardship” argument is only available to those facing a totting-up disqualification. Further, even if it was available and was successful, it does not “change the revocation to a disqualification.”
As above, a defendant may well ask the court to consider a short disqualification instead of points. The Magistrates’ guidelines say this:
“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.”
But the "Adult Bench Book" also contains this:
"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."
Of course a simple way to address the disqualification option would be to make the New Driver’s Act applicable not only to drivers who gain six or more points, but also to those who are disqualified for any length of time. It has always struck me as perverse that a new driver who commits (say) two minor speeding offences will see his licence revoked, whereas one committing an alcohol or drug related driving offence which might attract a ban of a considerable length does not.
It is true that the court has the power to order a "disqualification until test passed". But apart from the fact that many Magistrates seem not to be aware that they have that power, making it discretionary would not be such a strong deterrent.
But that’s an argument for another day.
