Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

[MikeF]

What are these multiple offences that 10,000+ drivers have committed?

Exceptional hardship is available only in the context of "totting up", ie where a driver has accumulated 12 points on their licence and is thus facing an automatic ban. (It isn't available where a ban is part of a sentence for a single offence; eg the mandatory ban for causing death by dangerous driving or an optional ban for careless driving.) So the offences are any which incur points: the most common will be exceeding the speed limit, but there are numerous others such as driving whilst drunk, having unroadworthy tyres, etc.

Yes indeed, but these drivers with hardship claims have committed other offences as well according to my understanding of what he is saying.

[thirdcrank]

Working out which points count for totting-up is complicated. It's not just a matter of twelve points.

It sounds to me as though he's saying that offences committed on different occasions (rather than several committed on the same occasion) are being weighed-off together, and therefore all coming under the same exceptional hardship plea. That's always been the case, but with fewer courts, I could imagine some backlogs.

[cyclemad]

Nick Freeman is not doing anything wrong He is just making use of the mess ups cops make when completing case files and the ineptitude of the Crown Prosecution Servce who don't know their backsides from their elbows..
Defence receives a case file up to 12 months prior to a court trial....Prosecution Barristers have been known to receive it on the night before or actually the morning of a trial !!!!!!!!!!

If either hasn't got the ability to submit / complete the correct forms and then check they are correct prior to a court hearing TUFF ... who's fault is that???????

The above appears to have been edited to remove the words that really describe the cock ups .

[9494arnold]

The "Exceptional Hardship" rule is a discretionary matter for The Courts where a driver acrues over 10 Penaly Points and would normally be banned. Nothing to do with the quality of the Police Evidence (in fact most speeding is done by Speed Cameras and is administered by Civillians employed by the Police) . It can be asked for (it's not automatic) if a driver drives for a living, or has a Caring role for a relative or similar. It can only be claimed once. And it only comes into play when the evidence has proved it's worth and the guilt has been established. Nothing to do with how much your lawyer is paid . I know someone will be thinking "Proffesional Driver , should know better / be more careful etc.

[[XAP]Bob]

When you say it can only be asked for once - how do we have people with 40+ points on the road?

What’s the point of points if they aren’t the deterrent - once you have points you need to drive more carefully to avoid getting more... if loss of license would be ‘exceptionally difficult’ then you make sure you don’t commit further offences...

How hard can it be?

[reohn2]

When you say it can only be asked for once - how do we have people with 40+ points on the road?

What’s the point of points if they aren’t the deterrent - once you have points you need to drive more carefully to avoid getting more... if loss of license would be ‘exceptionally difficult’ then you make sure you don’t commit further offences...

How hard can it be?

But you're thinking logically

[Bonefishblues]

Just to be clear in my understanding, I think it's the case that once a number of points (12 or more) have been successfully put forward as part of an exceptional hardship defence, they are then effectively ignored, even if they remain on the licence for the 4-year period? The slate is clean, as it were, even if the licence isn't. A driver can continue to accrue points.

Drug driving accrues up to 11 points and stay on for 11 years, and so on, so a ban might be served, and then even more points are won by the exceptional driver.

Is that the case?

[Cunobelin]

To me it is simple, you get points because you cannot drive in a correct and safe manner.

You accrue 12 points and go to Court. You tell the Judge that if you lose your licence, your Fluffy Kitten rescue service will fail and thousands of kittens will die each year if they take away the licence. The Judge believes this, and on the grounds odf exceptional hardship doesn't activate the ban.


What I cannot understand is where this person continues to prove that they cannot drive is a safe and correct manner, accrue another 12 points and get the same concession repeated.

To me it should be very simple. You were given a second chance, you blew it.......... not only should the second ban be compulsory, but the first ban should be reinstated

[reohn2]

To me it is simple, you get points because you cannot drive in a correct and safe manner.

You accrue 12 points and go to Court. You tell the Judge that if you lose your licence, your Fluffy Kitten rescue service will fail and thousands of kittens will die each year if they take away the licence. The Judge believes this, and on the grounds odf exceptional hardship doesn't activate the ban.


What I cannot understand is where this person continues to prove that they cannot drive is a safe and correct manner, accrue another 12 points and get the same concession repeated.

To me it should be very simple. You were given a second chance, you blew it.......... not only should the second ban be compulsory, but the first ban should be reinstated

Now you are thinking logically too

[Bonefishblues]

To me it is simple, you get points because you cannot drive in a correct and safe manner.

You accrue 12 points and go to Court. You tell the Judge that if you lose your licence, your Fluffy Kitten rescue service will fail and thousands of kittens will die each year if they take away the licence. The Judge believes this, and on the grounds odf exceptional hardship doesn't activate the ban.


What I cannot understand is where this person continues to prove that they cannot drive is a safe and correct manner, accrue another 12 points and get the same concession repeated.

To me it should be very simple. You were given a second chance, you blew it.......... not only should the second ban be compulsory, but the first ban should be reinstated

My implied question is if that's what is really happening?

[pete75]

To me it is simple, you get points because you cannot drive in a correct and safe manner.

You accrue 12 points and go to Court. You tell the Judge that if you lose your licence, your Fluffy Kitten rescue service will fail and thousands of kittens will die each year if they take away the licence. The Judge believes this, and on the grounds odf exceptional hardship doesn't activate the ban.


What I cannot understand is where this person continues to prove that they cannot drive is a safe and correct manner, accrue another 12 points and get the same concession repeated.

To me it should be very simple. You were given a second chance, you blew it.......... not only should the second ban be compulsory, but the first ban should be reinstated

Now you are thinking logically too

It can only be used once in any three year period after which presumably the points will no longer be valid. For offences where the points last ten years there is almost always a mandatory ban and exceptional hardship can't be used to avoid.

In my view the courts seem to use hardship not exceptional hardship as an excuse for not imposing a ban. Hardship is the whole point of imposing a ban.
For example

Mr. A has no dependants and lives in a house a he owns outright. His wife is in well paid employment.If he loses his licence he will lose his job as an account manager. That's hardship - he should be banned though a lot of courts would let him keep his licence.

Mr. B is employed as a tractor driver. He has a wife and three children all dependant on his income. If he is banned he will not only lose his job but the whole family will be evicted from the tied house that goes with it. That is exceptional hardship and in my view he should get one more chance.

[[XAP]Bob]

He has already had four chances (typically point come it batches of three IIRC)....

[Cunobelin]

To me it is simple, you get points because you cannot drive in a correct and safe manner.

You accrue 12 points and go to Court. You tell the Judge that if you lose your licence, your Fluffy Kitten rescue service will fail and thousands of kittens will die each year if they take away the licence. The Judge believes this, and on the grounds odf exceptional hardship doesn't activate the ban.


What I cannot understand is where this person continues to prove that they cannot drive is a safe and correct manner, accrue another 12 points and get the same concession repeated.

To me it should be very simple. You were given a second chance, you blew it.......... not only should the second ban be compulsory, but the first ban should be reinstated

Now you are thinking logically too

Sorry....

[thirdcrank]

I think the only way to resolve this might be to take the totting up away from the courts and make it an administrative procedure.

One problem is that magistrates don't just deal with driving cases and they see the problems associated with unemployment. They will often do all they can to protect someone's job, even if that person hasn't been very careful. They will be slow to disqualify somebody who drives as part of their job. IIRC, exceptional hardship was introduced to differentiate it from any old hardship. It hasn't worked.

[Bmblbzzz]

Rich people would try to find other ways
If I were rich I might employ a chauffeur

Parker, fetch the Rolls!

That would be an excellent example of the law and personal wealth working together for everyone's good. The dangerous driver is no longer driving. They are using their own money to ensure their mobility and providing employment in doing so. The aim of a driving ban is to stop one individual driving, not to keep them at home.