Special Reasons and Totting-up

Hello and welcome to this date. It'll presentation special reasons and talking up. My name is calling. They want, and I know it says Barris to there on the slide. But I'm non practicing. Okay, What have we got? What? We've got 22 slides to get through. Join the next hour on we call possibly half a dozen bullet points per slide. So that's gave to the fast. More would deal with special reasons. First of all, and they will do with totting up special reasons. Certain offenses, as you know, carry an obligatory disqualification from driving. And where they do they obligatory. Disqualification is section 34 of the road Traffic Offenders Act 1918. Don't drive is a classic, isn't it? To have driving is another one dangerous driving, aggravated vehicle taking. I'm sure you're aware of the offenses that carry an obligatory Milliman. Disqualification from driving and section 30 full of the road traffic offenders at 1988 is really clear. A parliament expects a disqualification. The starting point is that the offender shall indeed be disqualified unless unless the court, for special reasons, designed that they're not going to impose a disqualification or they're going to impose a shorter disqualification that Parliament would ordinarily intend, As I put there on the seconds lie where special reasons are found effectively, the court is given back its discretion. It has a discretion, perhaps not to disqualify it'll Oh, it has a discretion toe order, a shorter period of disqualification that Parliament would ordinarily expect. And we know going way that in most instances Parliament would ordinarily expect how many members quantification of 12 months. There are certain instances in which parliament would ordinarily expect the minimum disqualification to be three years. But well, look at that as we go through this webinar. I suppose you know, if the court decided to give a very sure period of disqualification, the minimum disqualification would be one day. That would be young, quite a decent result. 20 client. I'm sure you'd agree all they could decide not to disqualify at all. As I say if they find special reasons that Parliament has said, Well, it's all back to the court and their discretion in the matter. Let's have a look. A slight three, as I just said, the normal obligatory minimum period of disqualification under Section 34 1 is a period of 12 months that 12 months minimum becomes in minimum off three years for certain defendants. Those defendants course are liable to three years. Why? Well, because they have to all mawr convictions for offenses mentioned within Section 34 3 within a 10 year period. That's the test two or more convictions. So you're looking it. Conviction dates you effectively, don't you? Take the commission. Date off today's events and you go back 10 years and you say, right? Has my client effectively got two convictions now within a 10 year team? If the answer to that is yes. And then, of course, it's a minimum three years. Classics driving or attempting to drive Austin fate driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol or with drugs in the system above the permissible levels. Don't get me wrong. You can still argue special reasons, but if you lose the argument, the stakes are that much higher because the ban is that much longer. Stifel, do please have a working knowledge of part one of Shake You to of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1980 years. You will see if you look at that sexual, the final column. In that schedule, certain offenses carried 3 to 11 penalty points. These points are to be imposed where special reasons are found for not disqualifying at those points may catch you out. If you're not aware of this, those points might make the defendant a Tato strong points or more. See the law in relation to totting up. Later, in this webinar with excess alcohol, you might successfully argue special reasons, but that won't necessarily avoid a disqualification. Gotta be careful, haven't you? Magistrates were entitled to say Yes, we accept it. His drinks were laced. We accept the He didn't know the amount of alcohol in his body at the time of driving. But the leading given was so high that he must have known he was no in a fit state to drive. And that might even happen even though they are fully satisfied with your special reasons on. And that he himself was not morally culpable, Shall we say, insofar as the dregs being laced are concerned was the leading high. We know the reading that we normally permissible level. You're allowed 35 leave If the reading is twice that'll above 70 or above the quarter appearance said. Rarely, if ever, should he not face a disqualification, even him, Special reasons have found, and the magistrate so happy that the drinks were indeed laced. So there you are. If you're not aware of it, get hold of one. Have shade you, too, Of the road traffic offenders at 1988 it's a It's a great schedule because it will tell you, of course, the nature of the offense, whether the events carries points, whether the offence carries a disqualification. If so, what type of disqualification, whether or not it's an offense that carries a term of imprisonment. So it's well worth familiarizing yourselves with, yet you, too. You've just got to make sure. Is it were that you don't fall foul of the final end column shed you, too, whereby 3 to 11 points must be imposed where special reasons are found in certain instances for not disqualifying. So I find the essence of a special reason is a lack off culpability on the dependent defendants. Part on a jolly good case to read concerning special reasons is the case of Regina Andi with Keane's There it is 1958 42 criminal appeal revolts at page 236 in which the Court of Appeal said, In order for something to be capable have amounting to a special reason, it must fulfill full basic requirements, and here they are. Firstly, it must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance to it must not amount in law to a defence to the charge. Special reasons either follow a guilty play. Oh, they could be argued where not guilty plea is being entered. But a conviction has Bean returned, in other words, the court finding that it did no amount in law to a defence to the charge. Thirdly, it must be directly connected with the commission of the events. And fourthly, it ought to be something that the court or properly to take into consideration. One imposing. And there you are. There you have the four criteria in relation to a special reason. And if you distill the essence of those criteria, yeah, I think you'll agree with me, the jury effectively saying where yes, we did transgress. We did break the law, but without any real any riel culpability on our part. And that's why, of course, laced drinks is always a classic a special reason because presumably you are arguing that there was the intervention of 1/3 party of the wedding. Well, wherever whereby the drinks were laced. He didn't appreciate the amount of alcohol he'd be drinking. Slight seven. Where special reasons are found, there should not effectively be a disqualification in excess of the mandatory period. God, I would hope, special reasons of hand. They really want to be a short a disqualification or no disqualification at all. So let me just explain what I mean by that first bullet point. Imagine you're arguing Special reasons. Nice drinks. The Magistrates fined. Did your drinks were laced? It's Magistrates fined that your dreams were laced. However, they take the view that you must have known that you wouldn't know in a position to drive in those circumstances. If they decide they are going to disqualify you, they should not disqualify you in excess of the mandatory minimum period. As I say, if that with you one would hope the disqualification would be for less, it's in the period or not at all. Remember the once special reasons are successfully found. The discretion of the court is fully restored and they can if they want to disqualify the vendor for a day, appoints. Think about it. A disqualification of one day would be far better that those points 3 to 11 which must be imposed if no disqualification is being imposed today. Those are points. Of course. They're going to last, don't they? For something like three years for totting up purposes? No, you're still liable. Would you believe for a three year ban on your second conviction, even if special reasons were found last time and there was no disqualification at all? That's why the harsh isn't it is beating guilty today to I know, driving with excess alcohol is not the highest limit in the world. Ordinarily, he'd be looking at a minimum disqualification of 12 months. But alas, some nine years earlier, he has a conviction or a similar events for which he successfully argued special reasons on. No disqualification was imposed last time. So won't it matters? Not the no disqualification was imposed last time. That's not the trigger. The trigger, of course, is that he has two convictions within a 10 year period. If that is the case, his disqualification today is a minimum of three years. And there you have the case, and I do think it's about the harsh Holliston and Gibbons, 1985. I think the law myself should be a bended where, but we have a little subsection to say yes, but this won't apply if on the previous occasion you successfully argued special reasons and you will not disqualified, albeit you were convicted on because you peed it guilty there you are harsh tonight. Eight. I've spoken about laced drinks, but there are other areas in which you can argue special reasons. The unintentional commission of the offense could clearly amount to a special reason, however. Don't don't confuse that with ignorance. Ignorance is no usually a special reason a boat tourists anxieties about his passengers. Health causing him to speed could clearly amount to a special reason. Special reasons, of course, in those circumstances being argued tow. Avoid penalty points rather than a disqualification from driving. What are you doing in argument? A special reason. You are trying to avoid the endorsement, either with points all the bad. The shortness of distance driven could amount to a special reserve, but it must be very short. I'm not sure that the quarter they appear like shortness Distance River very much. We do have case law that says, If you drive more than 200 yards, which if you think about it is a very short period, then you will not to be given the benefit of a successful special reasons argument, I think, really the call would want to limit special reasons shortness of distance driven to those circumstances where perhaps your client was taking the vehicle off the highway and trying to drive it a few yards onto his drive rather than setting out on any sort of journey. We do have case little don't way to the effect that even if you're stopped having gone but a short distance, you can't argue, was a special reason shortness of distance driven if it had bean your intention to drive further, but for the fact that you were stopped by the police within a very short distance, lacing of drinks and a wedding, well, that's a classic, isn't it? Could amount to a special reason. Are these things look great, don't they? On the papers, they tend to fall apart in court. Now when people stop giving evidence for the lace drinks argument to work. Of course, there must be an intervention by 1/3 party. There's no point in your client's saying what I thought I was drinking longer that wasn't particularly strong was. In fact, he was drinking for strength lager. As I said earlier on this particular slide, ignorance of the law and of what you're drinking is no developments. The Court of Appeal have said more than once there's a very high owners place to polit person who decides to drink and to drive a motor vehicle that what is drinking is not so strong that it is going to put him over the limit. You've got to be careful having you for the client or the defendant who says, while I was drinking home brew at a friend's house and I didn't think it was very strong. What I'm afraid if it turns out to be very strong on put you over the limit, that's not going to be a special reason. Yes, turning to slide nine. Of course, medical evidence may well assist the court. I'm in a lace drinks case. This is not something you want the magistrate trying to work out themselves walls in the retiring room. Let's imagine, your client says, Well, I deliberately limited myself to a glass of wine because I knew I'd be driving now. Clearly, I didn't appreciate that the Owens juice that I was drinking thereafter have been laced with gin. Well, vodka in those circumstances where your client is saying that it had something to drink, but the additional lacing took him over the limit. You Bavarian. Why? I used to get in experts with Paul Tape Feli. I'm to the effect that, but for the additional lacing, he would have been under the limit at the time of driving. But as I put their one slide nine, it's not a requirement that medical evidence is required in every late strings case. It may be that your client is saying what I thought I'd only bean drinking orange juice in those circumstances. I think you don't need an expert, do you to satisfy the Magistrates that there's no alcohol. It always juice I love. The whole of the reading can be accounted for by the lacy. You might have a client say, say, Well, I I had but one glass of sherry. I think in those circumstances, it's really a matter of your judgment as to whether or not you feel an expert calculation would assist the court because I put them in both of the above cases. No, drink it all on a small sherry. I think the court were entitled to say, Well, clearly the lacing If we believe the laser, if we believe his drinks were laced, it must have bean the lacy that took him over the limit. No, you might send off port, and the report might come back where, even on your own version you would have be over the limit of the time. But not to the extent, of course, of the reading on the print out, because a large amount of the reading on the printout can be accounted for by the fact that your drinks were laced. What? Let's imagine that the printout puts him at 120 or over in breath. Well, that's fairly significant, isn't it, because the court start considering a custodial sentence at 120 beyond. It may be your report says well, but for the lacy, his reading would have Bean 60. I'm sure you would agree with May that there's a huge difference between 60 120 and I'm sure you would agree with me also that the disparity between those two readings would materially affect the sentence. I think in those circumstances the court would be obliged to adjourn the case for a new gym hearing for them to hear witnesses for them to establish the VAX. Remember they not to centers on the crown's fax of 120 without finding 120 for themselves as a fact, having heard the evidence from the witnesses, please do bear in mind that it is the prosecution who bear the burden in a Newton Khiry. They must establish their fax to the required criminal standard beyond a reasonable doubt or satisfied so that the court is short. The authority for that is Nevada, on the city off London Magistrate's Court and for a good case in which the issue of a Nugent hearing was discussed in a lace drinks case that do read the case off Goldsmith. Slight tape. As I said, an idea. Special reasons usually follow a guilty plea. They don't have to follow a guilty plea it might be a conviction. After a trying where the court finds that is not a defense, it may still find it to be a special reason. Please, please, please don't confuse special reasons with your defenses. Do us of circumstance, us of necessity. These are defenses, and care should be exercised not to confuse them with a special reason. The client should be advised to enter a not guilty plea. Now it may be, but if he or she is convicted, there'd be no harm in that called there after the same court, Considering whether or no all be it didn't amount to a defense at whether or not it amounted to a special reason now whereby they all know to disqualify after the required period all they will not to impose penalty parts. There's a classy the motorist having to go through a red light in order to allow the ambulance to go past. That's not a guilty plea, followed by a special reason is eat. That's Jewess Giresse of circumstance or duress of necessity. I had to get out the way in order to allow the ambulance to go through the jump shown. That's a not guilty plea, Of course, on offense has been committed because it is an offence to go through a red light. One would hope that in those circumstances the person isn't even charged. But if they are, it's a not guilty plea. Also think in terms of a not guilty plea Giresse of circumstance, duress of necessity with the defendant who says what I had to drive away from that party. I knew I was drunk, but my violent boyfriend turned up. He's done a lot of serious harm to me in the past, and I really did fear for my life or I feared serious bodily harm. Careful under duress. I drove my car away from that party I found in all the circumstances it would be a good idea not to wait around the defendant who said one. I was having problems of a medical nature, and I had to get out of that queue on the note away because I have to drive on the hard shoulder in order to go up the slip road to the services as quickly as possible because I had to go. If you get my drift in those circumstances, that might well be argued as juris off necessity. If it were may, I wouldn't necessarily rushing to a guilty plea with special reasons. I think I try the defense first. What about the client? Who says, Yeah, I was drunk, but I had to take over the driving because although my wife was driving the hospital, she being sober. She started giving birth at the wheel when it might not be as dramatic as giving birth, but it might have caused be the young, the part before giving birth, which I'm sure is incredibly painful. And you wouldn't want to be driving a motor vehicle whilst in that degree of Peyton. In those circumstances, of course, it may be that the drunk person has to take over the wheel. Well, he or she might be arguing that as a medical emergency, I'm not sure that's necessarily your dress. I think it's probably a special reason following a guilty plea, as I put their medical emergencies can clearly amount to a special reason. We are talking about the unintentional commission of the events. Sometimes it falls within a gray area. I think about possibly a not guilty plea first and then, of course, if the court rejects that events they can always thereafter on argue it as a special reason. So there you are. I think I've probably come to the end there. Just a sum it up. When might you have a special reason where your classic is Shortness of distance driven laced drinks, medical emergencies? You're effectively argue. Aren't you? That well, yes, you did commit the offense, but you're not as culpable. That's the average person committing that type of events. And if the quarter with you, a parliament has given them a limited discretion to either not disqualify it all or perhaps make the disqualification shorter than the normal will. Quiet period. Of course, if they don't disqualify you it all in a drink drive case, Do watch out for those 3 to 11 points. Okay, that's all I really want to say. Um, about special reasons. Shall we go on to totting up? And that starts on slide 12. Talk to go. This is the legal expression at regarding defendants with 12 penalty points or more on their license. Such defendants are in the main at risk of a disqualification of at least six months. But to be fair, to Magistrates and district judges. Most of the time it's going to be Is he no six months? The old regime consisted off simply endorsements. If you had so many endorsements on your license, you were something to a disqualification. But that was a lot changed when the system came in in relation to the accumulation off penalty points on penalty points of 12 all more being the trigger for a disqualification. Some events is carry a fixed number. A penalty points some variable, if you know. Sure have a look. We mentioned it earlier. Part one. Andi to off shed you, too. Parts one and two of Schedule two of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Well worth a read will tell you everything you need to know about that particular offense that you're dealing with aiding and abetting on offense, carrying obligatory disqualification. 10 penalty points. So watch out if you have one of those because added two points already on the license that may well be 12 or more drunk in charge. Drugging johrj 10 penalty points. No, on a plate, you tree bam! But of course, those points added two points already on the record may amount to 12 alm or on the client might be a risk of being a torta. Now remember, we were looking at the circumstances in which you might be liable for a three year baton rather than 12 months in relation to excess alcohol on the test waas effectively that you take the commission date of the latest of today's events is the commission date of the latest of today's offenses on the question then Waas Did the client have a previous conviction within 10 years of the commission date of that events. That event, of course, being another drink drive offence, you're looking really. Two offenses carry on obligatory disqualification for the 10 year rule to kick it. It's different with totting up and penalty points with penalty points. You're looking at the commission of the offence to the Commission of the events. That's a three year period. Section 29 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1918 you are looking for the commission of events to the Commission of Events within a three year period, for which points have bean imposed on our to be imposed, making 12 or more. If that used the case the clients are taught. Section 35 of the act is the talking up section. It is a disqualification for repeated offenses. Wherever you see a Section 35 disqualification on the record, it can be for nothing but totting up. Section 35 says the court must disqualify for the minimum period set out in the act unless unless there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences off the conviction. So that's what you're arguing for. If you're seeking to get a shorter disqualification or no disqualification at all, you are arguing that there were grounds for mitigating the normal consequences off the conviction. The minimum period. Have a disqualification under totting up, if usually six months, but do have regard to previous disqualifications that have been imposed upon the client within six months of today's effects. So yet another test you take the commission date off today's events. Let's assume room Today's commission date is the 10th of February 2020. You would then go back, wouldn't you to the 11th of February 2000 and 17 a period of three years, and you would ascertain whether or not any previous disqualifications would be imposed, Roost had being imposed in that period. It does say that have regard to previous disqualifications imposed within six months of today's events. I would want to confuse you. Those disqualifications must have bean imposed within three years of the commission date of today's events. It's fully set out there for you and slight Fortin. There is a disqualification of six months. If no previous disqualification is being imposed, the disqualification must have Bean imposed within three years of the commission date off. Today's offense, in order for it to be relevant on a minimum period of 12 months, is looking is coming the clients way if he or she has one previous disqualification imposed within three years of the commission date of today's offense. Andi gets worse, doesn't it? A minimum period of 24 months if more than one such disqualification has been imposed. So you're really looking at the commission date of today's offense? So you're saying right, What has the client had in the last three years by way off disqualifications? Please don't think that those disqualifications must have Bean for totting up. It doesn't say that in the legislation. In order for a previous disqualification to be relevant, it must have Bean imposed within three years of the commission date of today's offense on and must have Bean for a period off 56 days or more. Eight weeks. 7/8 56. No. What might that ban have Bean for? Well, he might have Bean in obligatory band of 12 months for drink driving. That's more than eight weeks. It might have been a previous totting up under Section 35 where the disqualification was for eight weeks or more. It might be a discretionary disqualification under Section 34 subsection two of the road traffic offenders at 1988. Even discretionary disqualifications count if there for a period of eight weeks or more. So watch out for those you might need to have a word with the legal adviser. Find out what's on the printout all. You might want to gain access to the client's own record at Swansea with decline sitting next to you just so you could find out in your office what their previous driving history is. What are you going to need to access their record of Swansea while you're going to need their driver number, which no doubt they can bring to the office with them. You're going to need their national insurance number and you are gated. The postcode that Swansea have for them as to where they are. The recorded keeper of their count Motivated armory, Those bits of information The pair of you can go into the Swansea website together. So tonight, 15. How does the totted and seek to avoid the disqualification? Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the term exceptional party. Would you believe the act doesn't say what you cannot? You, the act informs, is of the things we can't argue. Section 35 sub section for lists, the things of which no account is to be taken. No account is to be Take it have any circumstances that are alleged not to make the events a serious one? No account is to be taken of hardship other than exceptional hard share. No account is to be taken of any circumstances which have been previously argued within three years off the conviction. Watch out for that. If you see a Section 35 disqualification within the previous three years of today's conviction on that disqualification is for sure to period than you would have expected. It raises incumbent upon you to contact the previous court on, get a memorandum of conviction and find out from the court register precisely what was successfully argued last time You wouldn't want us. It were him to give evidence today and say something which he had successfully argued last time because the law precludes him from successfully arguing today anything he's argued successfully within three years off the conviction. And he might simply not remember. I think it's very wise for us, the lawyer in the case, to get that memorandum of conviction from the previous core. It's like 60 where the court finds that there are grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction. They have a discretion to make the disqualification period shorter than the normal minimum payment. I suppose the minimum period have such a disqualification is one day. Think about it. Any disqualification of 55 days or fewer is probably not a bad result for the blind. Do try and keep disqualifications of 56 days or more. Oh, the clients Reckord, if you can, they're a bit troublesome. The called could decide not to impose any disqualification at all, but simply to impose the points. Now that might be a very good result, especially if some of the point which made him a totter today were very old points on a no longer relevant for the future. Remember, points are only relevant for three years. Commission of offence to commission of the things. Of course, if the points of relatively recent vintage, then a short disqualification might be preferable to no disqualification but simply imposing the points. Think about it. If he leaves cool with a record off 12 points, Alm or but no disqualification and he re offends, of course he's going to be a totter, a gay. He's got to bay. Gosh, he left court with 12 today. So any additional points, so long as they fall within a period commission of events to commission of offence within a three year period he's going to talk to on. Of course, he's precluded from arguing that which Waas successfully argued today. I suppose you could argue today. Don't give him any penalty points. Don't make him a totter. Why don't you give him a discretion? We ban instead, Section 34 subsection two of the road traffic Offenders Act 1988 you can try it. I'm not sure that the Magistrates are very amenable to it. Are they sure? Leading case on slide over 17. Thomas Edward Jones on the chief constable off West Mercia authority for the proposition that the court can if they want to give a discretionary ban on today's of things, no points, thereby not making him my daughter. It's an unattractive argument on the Magistrates. Guidelines suggest that if a person is a potential totter that you know, they really ought to be given the points and they ought to be made a daughter, and then we go around the Have they got an exceptional hardship argument to avoid the normal back? This is an important point. If the Glines made a daughter any disqualification of whatever duration whatsoever, even if a day will wipe the record clean of points, why? Well, because those previous points have been used ab to today's points to make him a total. You could never use the point once in determining whether will not a person has 12 or more, and you simply add points already on the record to today's points. If they make 12 alm or on they are for offenses committed within a three year period. Then he's a doctor because I put there to find a bullet point on slide 17. The record is still wiped clean, regardless of the duration of the bank under Section 35. That is why he is very rare to be disqualified as a daughter for a day. You might be disqualified for a period off two months. Well, that's not of that result. Is it? Bearing in mind the minimum period of disqualification is six. Unless the court are with you on your exceptional hardship parking. Oh, tonight 18. The decision for the court is either penalty points back. Never both see section 44 of the vote Traffic Offenders Act 1918 Failing to stop with seen no insurance. Careless driving all of the above three events is carry a variable set of penalty points. If you look at the schedule of the back of the road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 failing to stop five detect no insurance 6 to 8 Can is driving three tonight. However, if order those three offenses were committed on the same occasion, you only put the points on one of those adventures. See Section 28 4 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998. So if we were caught dealing with the mystery on the same occasion, how many points could we impose? Well, I suppose the absolute maximum would be 10 my boat because failing to stop at the scene of an accident carries between five and 10 penalty points could be imposed. The points on the no insurance. Well, yes, we good. We could also impose the points on the cat is driving. But watch out because no insurance carries a bare minimum of six penalty points, carry 6 to 8. So the law says you can impose the points on the failure to stop at the scene of the accident if you want to. But you've got to start at six. You can't give him fire you because you got no insurance and no insurance. Got six is a very minimum. You could put the points on the careless driving if you want to, but you can't give him three or four or five. You've gotta start at six. Why? Well, because no insurance carries a minimum six. So they were minimum six today. If they deal within by way of points minimum maximum Ken, if they deal with it by way of points training to stop of the scene of an accident. So what we mean by on the same occasion there? Because we always, from a defense perspective on the offenses to have been committed on the same occasion. Why? Well, it's one set of points on the same occasion, not defined anywhere in the act. We are looking at offenses close in space on closing time. That's what we get from case law. It's like 19 penalty points ceased to be relevant for totting up purposes three years after the commission date off the events. So, in other words, if the commission date of the offense was the 10th of February 2020 those points would cease to be relevant. But we're talking up practices at midnight on the ninth of February 2023. Do be careful, please. If you're trying to successfully argued hardship, exceptional hardship in the previous three years, it is for the defendant to establish. The today's grounds are different as the authority for it. San banged sand batch justices expert a basket, and that may well mean, as I put there very sensible to check what happened at the court on the previous occasion. If checks are made by the court afterwards on, the defendant has in some way misled the court whilst giving evidence concerning the exceptional hardship argument. He or she may find himself charged with perjury, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that toe happen. So I 20 don't diss you that just because the offence carries penalty points that penalty points will be imposed. Remember that every offence carrying penalty points also carries with it in lieu of penalty points. A discretionary banned from driving section 34 2 of the road traffic offenders act 1988. So let's have a bad example willing shall way A bad example failing to stop. But the scene of the accident failing to report the accident careless driving These three offenses arose out of the same incident there on the same occasion. It was late at night on the driver failed to stop at the scene of the accident. Knobbed the cyclist office bite left him writhing in agony at the see you with a broken our didn't be caught to a police station assumes was reasonably practicable in any way. Within 24 hours, Andi no doubt was careless in striking the cyclist from his bag. It's a bad case on the facts, and, of course, it happened late at night. So there's always the suspicion that he didn't stop because he had too much to drink. I think in those circumstances you can expect a discretion re ban rather than penalty points. Minimum period of a discretion. We ban one day maximum period of a discretionary ban life. That's what's meant by a discretion. Parliament hasn't any. Parliament hasn't set any mandatory minimum periods under 34 to it is a highly within the discretion off the cool. The court could also disqualify until we test section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Do you remember, of course, that if you are disqualified until retest in addition to a ban, you've got to be very careful to say to the client, Look, you can't dry at all during the period of your back. When your fixed ban ends, you can then apply for a license. It will be a provisional licence because you've bean disqualified until retest. Make sure you apply for your provisional licence. Make sure you display your L plates. Make sure you have a qualified passenger in the vehicle with you. Because if you don't, even though your fixed period of disqualification is finished, if you draw you having been subject to a disqualification until retest without a provisional or without l plates or without to qualified passenger in the vehicle with you, you commit the offensive driving whilst disqualified. Harsh but true, it is a case of hunter and coups. Meanwhile back it's like 21 a discretionary band under Section 34 to will know, wipe the record keen of points that's worth knowing. If you say to the magistrate will give him a discretion. We ban on today's of things. You won't be giving him a clean record because the points already on his record will stay on. His record on will be relevant for talking up. This is for three years, Commission of offence to commission of events. Only a totting up disqualification of whatever duration under Section 35 will wipe a record. Kane of Points penalty point defenses will be removed from the Swansea database four years from the commission date of the events offenses in relation to alcohol or drugs. 11 years from the commissioned age of the events, offenses have to be declared for insurance purposes for five years on a road traffic conviction carrying an endorsement, You're no rehabilitated until five years have elapsed. And finally, on slight 22 6 important road traffic cases. Firstly, Hunter in Kuhn's just mentioned that Hamdi, that's the client who's driving even though he hasn't got his provisional licence. He's being disqualified to retest. He hasn't got no plates, and he hasn't got a qualified passenger vehicle with him. Such a person creates the offence driving most disqualified DPP and Watkins is the leading case on in charge of the nature vehicle. Wants drunk or drunk, and they tend to charge. Do they know in charge when you're sat there in a stationary vehicle? In order to be driving, of course, you must have substantial control over the movement and direction of the vehicle, so it's a stationary vehicle they're likely to charge in charge. Don't forget the statutory defence in relation to in charge. No likelihood that he would have driven whilst he was effectively over the limit where off the proof shall lie on him on must be discharged orbit on the civil standard. Other balance of probabilities. Johnson and Finn bow. And that's the case, dealing with saying occasion, the penalty points failing to stop and failing to report all beat. Of course, they might occur some 24 hours from each other, both of both accorded Johnson and Finn. Bo is being established. The both are to be treated as on the sanctification. Lost Martine. You can have penalty points or band, but never both chatters. And Berg is the leading case on shortness of distance driven and well worth. A read Thomas Neil Goldsmith Hip flask defense. Possible Newton hearing. If you're saying well, the difference between what I'd had to drink beforehand on what I'd had after I'd stop driving. The difference is of surgery degree that it would make a material difference to the sentence in those circumstances, as it were, a Newton Khiry all to be heard in order for the Magistrates with the district judge to determine the facts as to just how much of the reading can be accounted for by the alcohol he drunk from the hip flask after he'd ceased to drive. And remember, if it's a Newton Khiry prosecution bear the burden, they must establish their fax to the required criminal standard. Nevada from the City of London Magistrates Court. Not so, of course, with special reasons where the burden is always upon the defendant to successfully establish the special reason all bead on a balance of probabilities. Ditto for the defense in relation in charge. No likelihood that he would have driven. He must show or beat on the simple standard balance of probabilities that there was no likelihood. Then he would have driven. Well, there you are. Gosha think that our I went by the fast, didn't it? I hope you found that useful. I'm around up really of the important things to know in relation both special reasons on totting up all the very remains is for me to thank you on behalf of data law for watching this weapon on for listening to may. I do hope you found it useful and I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future. On another related criminal matter, this is calling by want signing off and say thank you very much