Special Reasons To Avoid Points or A Ban

Affront as ambulance driver fined and points imposed

I would love to know if this man received legal advice before he tendered a guilty plea to such a charge as in my view the points and fine could have been avoided.

It was reported that the ambulance driver was clocked doing 84mph with his blue lights on on the A1 in Scotland, he then appeared at Haddington Sheriff Court in East Lothian and received a fine and endorsements.

He was reported as saying “We’re now going to have to switch off our blue lights and go through that stretch at 70mph even if it is an emergency. This will cost somebody their life if there’s too much delay on one of these organs,” he said.

He was delivering a donated liver for a desperately ill child and made it just in the nick of time.

If he was driving a properly marked ambulance with blue light and siren and on a genuine medical emergency run I am stunned that the Crown prosecuted this man but certainly consider he had a defence to the charge or at the very least could have made out Special Reasons not to disqualify.

What Are The Special Reasons To Avoid Disqualification?
Special reasons are relevant if you are convicted of a road traffic offence which has a penalty of disqualification, or obligatory endorsement. Although special reasons are not technically a defence, they can significantly reduce the sentence you receive and can mean that you avoid a driving ban.

Obligatory disqualification
- Imposed for serious offences such as dangerous driving or drink driving.
- The court must disqualify for a period of at least 12 months (more if you have a similar previous conviction, or if the offence is particularly serious one).
- The court may shorten the period of disqualification or remove it altogether if it considers that there are “special reasons” to do so.

Obligatory endorsement
- Imposed for a range of offences, including speeding, using a mobile phone, not having insurance, as well as more serious offences where disqualification can also be imposed.
- The court may impose anything up to 11 penalty points.
- If the court thinks that there are “special reasons” for doing so, they will decide not to endorse your licence (it cannot reduce the number of points it imposes).

Special reasons can only relate to the facts and circumstances of the offence itself, such as the reason why it was committed. Your personal circumstances, for example the effect that the disqualification/endorsement will have on you or others, or the fact that the offence was “trivial” (for example if you only slightly exceeded the speed limit) do not count as special reasons.

Examples of special reasons

Medical emergency
If you can show that you committed the offence only because of a medical emergency, then this will amount to a special reason. However, the emergency must be genuine and unforeseen. You must also show that you drove only as a last resort: you must have exhausted all other possibilities of dealing with the emergency, including contacting the emergency services. For example, if a driver who lived in a rural area drove (whilst over the legal limit) to take his seriously sick child to hospital because no ambulance was available, then this would probably amount to a special reason for not disqualifying.

Short distance
Whether the fact that you only drove for a short distance amounts to a special reason depends on the whole circumstances of the incident. The law is complex in this area, but what is clear is that the distance must be very short indeed, and the court will carefully consider any danger that you posed to the public.

Laced Drinks
For offences involving alcohol, it will not be a special reason if you did not realise how much you drank. But if you don’t know that you are drinking alcohol (for example, if you are served regular beers when you asked for alcohol-free ones), or you don’t realise how alcoholic your drink is (for example, if someone “spiked” your pint with shots of tequila), then a special reason might be established if it was obvious that the unadulterated drink would not have put you over the legal limit

Points discount leads to rise in road offence guilty pleas

Slow Down! Speeding Day of Action By Police

Reported in Today’s Scotsman regarding Speeding

“Police will crack down on speeding drivers as part of a day of action targeting the offence.”

This is a day  organised through the Association of Chief Police Officers. Great to see some joined up thinking and a concerted effort on behalf of the police to get a strong anti speeding message across. I would love to see the stats on accident reduction when such an intiative takes place or do drivers just jump on the brakes when they come round the bend and see a cop standing at the side of the road with his speed gun.

Hopefully they will be using something other than the Radar equipment that seems to have been discredited not just by defence solicitors but by police officers giving evidence to say how often they fail to be reliable. Or more accurately how often they are used in unreliable circumstances.

This police initiative is the latest in a series of national ACPOS campaigns for 2011/12 which have targeted issues such as uninsured vehicles, using mobile phones whilst driving, seatbelt use and drink/drug driving.These police “Days of Action” tend to be good for business for the road traffic lawyers such as myself as they have prosecuted  over 1000 motorists for speeding and over 70 drivers for driving dangerously or carelessly.

Speeding carries a  3-6 point penalty points endorsement on your driving licence with the potential of a discretionary ban. Also expect a fine. If you already have 6 points on your licence you could be facing a 12 point “Totting Up” ban so seek the advice of a road traffic lawyer as soon as possible if charged as part of this initiative.

If convicted of dangerous driving, you will lose your licence for at least 12 months and you will be ordered to re-sit an extended  driving test involving at least 1 hour of driving.

Big Brother Cameras Enforce MORE driver fines

More Fines for Bus lane drivers

An interesting article on the  STV website today..

Motorists in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen could face fixed penalties of £60 later this year after the Scottish Government approved plans to fine drivers who go through bus lanes

Big brother will be watching as it looks like the camera companies have managed to persuade our elected representatives that we need, even more watching. Measures will be enforced by a series of cameras which will be installed along major bus routes in the cities.

Many of us are all too aware that Glasgow and Edinburgh have already installed cameras on their main bus roads – STV reported that ten have been set up in Edinburgh’s city centre and key routes out of the city and 12 have been put in place in Glasgow.

If you feel strongly about it then you should contact your local Councillor as they  will need to plan exactly how the scheme will work in each city and seek the final approval from local councillors and then the Scottish Government before enforcement can begin later this year.

My own concern is that if we de criminalise this then how will the driver have a right of appeal and how will this be funded. I assume they envisage something similar to the parking fines appeals procedure controlled by a civil authority and NOT the courts. I do not consider that courts should be clogged with such offences, especially since no points will be attributed to this type of driving but due consideration requires to be given to the fairness and cost of a review system.

A Glasgow City Council report written in 2012 estimated that as much as £250,000 could be earned in the first year from the scheme. I am sure that we all would like to see real transparency in the subsequent spending of this new found money. How much is raised and where has it gone? Has it fallen down a black hole of operting costs for camera company etc etc

Council bosses claim that they plan to reinvest the money into city transport infrastructure.

The cameras will take a note of the number plates on all the vehicles which drive on bus lanes and a computer will confirm whether the plates are registered to buses, taxis or emergency vehicles.

Another camera will record a video of the incident which will be checked manually before a fine is actually issued.

Edinburgh transport convenor Gordon Mackenzie welcomed the new laws. Speaking to the Herald, he said: “Illegal use of these lanes can cause unnecessary delays to bus journeys and accidents but once these cameras are up and running I’m hopeful we will see a sizeable reduction in these problems.”

Under the old system, only the Police could enforce bus lane regulations by issuing a £30 fine after a local order has been passed by the council.

The exact level of the fines is still to be decided, however it is understood that a fine similar to the £60 fixed penalty notice for parking is being considered.

Euan Ross and others -Penalty Points

Further to my blog the other day we have now received the 61 page judgement in connection with a conjoined hearing regarding 7 appeals against sentence.

Euan Ross is one of the  aforementioned cases.

Our little bird called it right when we were told that penalty points can be reduced in Road Traffic cases but unfortunately it looks like we still cannot get away from the statutory minimum of 3 points.ie If Parliament has stated that you get at least 3 penalty points for the contravention then that remains the case even if you plead guilty at the first calling of the case.

The case does state that penalty points and disqualification have to be taken as a punishment element and indeed discounts can be applied where the court considers that an early plea merits this.  Paragraph 167 (Final paragraph) makes it clear that disqualification and penalty points may be subject to a discount in appropriate circumstances. However it states "As sentencers cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, which is a feature of both disqualification and penalty points, those who plead guilty in cases where the minimum sentence of disqualification or penalty points would have been selected in any event, CANNOT obtain a discount in respect of those parts of the sentence. " Clearly the appropriate part of any discount would be reflected in the fine.

Shame as I felt that if the minimum points could be reduced by way of decent mitigation and an early plea there could have been a real significant utilitarian benefit to all as we could clear the lower courts of a vast number of road traffic trials taken by those people appearing with 9 live points and a desperate desire to avoid a 6 month ban.

Statutory minimum sentences can of course be altered where we have the likes of the Drink Drive Rehabilitation Scheme. Successful completion of same means that a driver can reduce a courts sentence by up to 25% hence a 12 month statutory minimum sentence can in fact be reduced by up to 3 months through further statutory provisions of the Road Safety Act 2006

Perhaps our courts should be able to order that drivers undertake further training (At their expense) and reduce the penalty points imposed dependent upon successful completion of some advanced driving style course.

The alternative to prosecution scheme is widely used in England and seems to be worth rolling out on a larger scale where the courts are entitled to exercise their discretion over a wider range of speeds. This would thereby encourage safe driving habits and skills  and  not just penalise drivers with bans and penalty points.

The bottom line of the 61 pages judgement seems to be that we cannot take sentencing discounts of 1/3 rd to for granted. They have to be earned and we now have more direction from the High court about where they apply and the starting point for their consideration.

Since the decision in Du Ploy and section 196 of the 1995 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act there has been a firm expectation of a 1/3rd sentence discount where an early plea was tendered but it would seem that the accused will no longer be able to rely on this expectation.

We will have to see how the bench interpret the guidance laid down in this case and see if it makes a palpable difference to how cases are dealt with on a day to day basis. If we see a strong movement away from the 1/3 rd early plea discount we will soon see our court clogging up with cases again.

Justice is certainly not about money but the public do derive a significant financial benefit when cases end at an early stage in proceedings. Some of the statistics referred to in this case demonstrate that point, all too clearly.

Figures for 2005/2006 indicate that an early plea in a High court case would cost the public purse, on average, £348 however if that case went to trial the expected costs would be in the region of £17,492. For a Sheriff court solemn case the average cost of prosecution would be in the region of £6,720 but if dealt with by an early plea £129.

Money is a significant factor but clearly not the most important factor. We should not discount early guilty pleas simply to save a few quid for the public purse. The main issue is how justice is done and how it is perceived to be done by the public in general. If we get into the land of horse trading cases and plea bargaining we may get into the dangerous ground where innocent people feel compelled or pressured into a guilty plea as they prefer the odds in securing a lower sentence. Confidence in our system of justice is at the heart of the matter and a fine balancing act requires to be done by our Judges, Sheriffs and Magistrates in all of our courts.  We will require to rely upon what our Australain cousins refer to as the process known as "instinctive synthesis" (Markarian -v- R HC Australia 25)

It is interesting that the courts seem to be slightly ahead of the legislature on this one by demonstrating that the law in England and Wales is different from Scotland when it comes to speeding offences and other road traffic matters.

As we know the Scotland Bill, when/if passed, will allow the Scottish Government to tinker with the legislation not just in relation to tax raising powers but in relation to matters such as penalty points in speeding cases.

In England and Wales they have the Sentencing Guidelines Council who have issued guidelines on sentencing that suggest that penalty points and disqualification periods should NOT be taken into account when establishing any sentence reduction period. We previously had a similar position following the case of Rennie -v- Frame 2005 SCCR. However, now those shackles have been removed and our courts can take a sensible common sense approach to sentencing in road traffic cases and apply  discount to the points or the period of disqualification where it considers this to be appropriate. The public remain protected, in that statutory minimum sentences cannot be reduced (Except where there is statutory provision to allow same, e.g. Where a Drink Drive Rehabilitation course has been completed)

If/when the Scotland Bill receives royal assent, one wonders if the Scottish Government will be at the forefront of a new penalty points system that rewards drivers for completing further driver training, or if they will just bludgeon Scottish drivers with higher penalty point tariffs and more speeding fines. If they simply go down the "big stick" route they will be open to justified criticism from Scottish drivers who just see these fines as a further road tax. They may also find that there would be a significant political tariff to pay if our drivers felt hard done by.

Increased points and higher penalties will do little or nothing to enhance road safety and the mind set of drivers in Scotland.

We know that the Drink Drive Rehab Scheme works as there has been plenty of supporting evidence published. Speed Awareness Courses seem to work in England but are not widely used in Scotland. The Scotland Bill gives us a chance to address road safety using the "Carrot and the Stick". These courses can be self financed by offending drivers and they can have a significant long term benefit in changing driver attitudes, skills and abilities making the roads safer for all of us.

Penalty Points reduced For Early Guilty Pleas

A little bird tells me that the High court today issued their judgement in connection with the Euan Ross appeal.

Many of you may have followed previous blogs where we looked at the implications of an early plea in a road traffic case.

I am told that Claire Mitchell Advocate, has successfully argued that the principle of sentencing discount which applies in many cases (Ruling in the Du Ploy case)  has now been applied to statutory offences in road traffic law matters that presently attract the imposition of penalty points. I await the full report of the case on the Scottish Courts Website but if this now applies to a reduction of the minimum 3 points there could be a massive reduction in the number of cases that proceed to trial in the Justice of the Peace courts in Scotland.

Our experience is that where a driver is sitting with 9 penalty points on his/her licence, facing a further charge where 3 penalty points will be endorsed,  they are left with an all or nothing dilemma about how to deal with their case. They face a 6 month totting up ban therefore they turn to specialist law firms like our own to find a way out. So much can rely upon the outcome of such a case that clients instruct us to proceed to trial and do all in our power to find any "loophole" or any technical defence that will allow them to avoid the totting up ban.

This is a remarkable judgement and much credit has to go to Claire Mitchell who argued the appeal so clearly and placed all issues before the High court for full consideration on this matter.

It makes clear sense that penalty points should be reduced as they form a strong element of the punishment part of any sentence and since Du Ploy allows a reduction in the most serious of cases it follows that the priciple should also apply in road traffic cases.

At present their is a mandatory minimum ban that requires to be imposed in relation to drink drive offences. 12 months for 1st offence and 3 years ban where you have been previously convicted of a drink drive offence in the past 10 years.  Does the Euan Ross + 6 cases, now mean that courts will be asked to reduce those "mandatory minimum" sentences. I will start by asking that question in court tomorrow!

Road Traffic Law Solicitors Just for the Rich and Famous?

Specialist Road Traffic Law Solicitors are definitely not just for the rich and famous. Those are just the cases you get to hear about.

Very often the general public are under the misapprehension that only celebrities and footballers, get the services of, or are able to afford a speialist road traffic lawyer.

This misconception is understandable as its only the celebrity cases that tend to get large amounts press and media coverage. But we deal with people from all walks of life… and if your licence is important to you… we are able to help.

Graham Walker explains in the following video…

You are eligible for a free consultation… in confidence… with a specialist road traffic law solicitor scotland