It has often been mentioned on these forums (and its predecessor) that when a new driver (less than 2 years on full licence) gets 6 points or more, that their licence is revoked and that they need to start all over again. It has also been stated that this is an administrative process by the DVLA and so the court doesn't really get a say in what happens.
However, there's a new CyclingMikey video on YouTube (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq-EzEdfeHY) showing that there seems to be another option. Starting at about the 4:00 mark, he reports that the errant new driver managed to plead (what he called exceptional circumstances) to get a 1 month ban for their mobile phone offence, rather than having those 6 points and getting their licence revoked.
So it seems it may not necessarily be a slam-dunk revocation in such cases if you have an appropriate hardship case. Not going to discuss the rights and wrongs of whether this is appropriate, but there it is.
None of that is new. It’s accepted that a court can impose a ban instead of six points to sidestep the revocation. However, it is contrary to the sentencing guidelines (and the will of Parliament) to do so. The court would need very good reasons to do it.
However, it is contrary to the sentencing guidelines (and the will of Parliament) to do so.
I think that's the real point.
“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.
With respect, I believe that you are putting the cart before the horse.
Nothing in statute says that the court cannot consider "exceptional" hardship when exercising their discretion in any sentencing - however, the term is explicitly used in the totting up legislation as no hardship other than exceptional hardship may be taken into consideration when exercising their discretion to deviate from the otherwise mandatory 6 month (minimum) ban for totting up.
Yes, point taken Andy.
I did say a formal EH argument and I was using it in its strict sense when referring to totting up. That has restrictions (only one argument using he same reasons within three years) which an argument for a single offence or ND revocation would not.
Although I may be wrong, it strikes me that Mikey was conflating the two procedures (totting up disqualification and New Drivers' revocation). I don't believe that he would otherwise have used the term. He also gave quite misleading information when explaining the six points/disqualification choice.
A cycling activist giving duff advice on motoring law? Say it ain’t so!
A cycling activist giving duff advice on motoring law? Say it ain’t so!
Hence why my OP said, "
what he called exceptional circumstances," knowing that it was likely he wasn't using the correct term that was applied inside the courtroom.