ChatterBank7 mins ago
One rule for them
11 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-108180 3/4-000-week-football-legend-John-Barnes-escap es-driving-ban-claiming-exceptional-hardship.h tml
Magistrates said they took into consideration his work, family and charity commitments and accepted that a ban would cause him exceptional hardship.
It couldn't have been because he is rich and famous?
If he had been a ordinary guy who depended on his car to earn his living, would they have then been so lenient?
Magistrates said they took into consideration his work, family and charity commitments and accepted that a ban would cause him exceptional hardship.
It couldn't have been because he is rich and famous?
If he had been a ordinary guy who depended on his car to earn his living, would they have then been so lenient?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The manager of the local Racecourse was let off a driving ban a couple of years ago as she wouldn't be able to continue her work if banned.
I also know of someone escaping a ban as they had no other way of visiting his son (who lived with his ex) if he had no car.
This sort of thing happens every day - but of course it doesn't get in the newspaper.
I also know of someone escaping a ban as they had no other way of visiting his son (who lived with his ex) if he had no car.
This sort of thing happens every day - but of course it doesn't get in the newspaper.
I have no idea whether uninsured drivers escape bans frequently or not.
It could happen several times every day for all I know. It could happen once every couple of years.
Without knowing that, it's impossible for me to gauge whether he has been treated with unusual leniency or whether this is par for the course.
Same with everyone.
So I presume you know all about this, AOG?
It could happen several times every day for all I know. It could happen once every couple of years.
Without knowing that, it's impossible for me to gauge whether he has been treated with unusual leniency or whether this is par for the course.
Same with everyone.
So I presume you know all about this, AOG?
One Rule for everyone
Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person must be insured against third-party risks if using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. Not to do so is an offence punishable either summarily with a fine of up to �5,000, six to eight penalty points and discretionary disqualification, or by a fixed penalty of �200 and six penalty points. Magistrates may disqualify for a first offence if the severity of the offence merits it.
A driving ban is not mandatory. In 2003, new guidance advised that for a first offence, Offenders will face an automatic �200 fine and six penalty points instead of a court appearance at which they could be disqualified.
So John Barnes is not getting any preferential treatment and is being dealt with to the letter of the law which governs us all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1432416 /Let-off-for-car-insurance-dodgers.html
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2003/ jun/23/driving-without-insurance
Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person must be insured against third-party risks if using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. Not to do so is an offence punishable either summarily with a fine of up to �5,000, six to eight penalty points and discretionary disqualification, or by a fixed penalty of �200 and six penalty points. Magistrates may disqualify for a first offence if the severity of the offence merits it.
A driving ban is not mandatory. In 2003, new guidance advised that for a first offence, Offenders will face an automatic �200 fine and six penalty points instead of a court appearance at which they could be disqualified.
So John Barnes is not getting any preferential treatment and is being dealt with to the letter of the law which governs us all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1432416 /Let-off-for-car-insurance-dodgers.html
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2003/ jun/23/driving-without-insurance
The footballer was not facing a ban for the individual offence of driving with no insurance. As has been pointed out for a first offence (of this type) this normally attracts 6 penalty points rather than a ban. The magistrates awarded him just such a penalty.
He was facing disqualification under the totting up rules. He already had nine points on his licence and the latest lot meant he had accumulated twelve within three years. He was therefore facing a totting up ban.
To avoid such a ban you can argue �exceptional hardship� which he successfully did. Note that this is different to arguing �special reasons�, which is put forward to avoid points or a ban for a single offence, as done by David Beckham. �Special reasons� must relate to the offence itself (as with Beckham). Exceptional hardship can only be argued to counter a totting up ban and relates to the circumstances the driver (or others who may be dependent upon him driving) will find themselves.
Loss of the driver�s own employment is not normally sufficient to avoid a ban. The magistrates considered that preventing Barnes from driving would cause exceptional hardship to the people on whose behalf he carries out work.
The fifteen points remain on his licence. One more offence which attracts points (before any of the current ones expire) will mean he faces a totting up ban again and he will not be able to use the same argument within three years.
Successful "exceptional hardship" arguments are heard all the time in magistrates' courts. They are all examined individually and it is the view of the Bench on the day that holds sway. Barnes has not received any preferential treatment because of who he is, but he may have employed a decent solicitor - as do most of those who succeed with what is quite a difficult argument .
He was facing disqualification under the totting up rules. He already had nine points on his licence and the latest lot meant he had accumulated twelve within three years. He was therefore facing a totting up ban.
To avoid such a ban you can argue �exceptional hardship� which he successfully did. Note that this is different to arguing �special reasons�, which is put forward to avoid points or a ban for a single offence, as done by David Beckham. �Special reasons� must relate to the offence itself (as with Beckham). Exceptional hardship can only be argued to counter a totting up ban and relates to the circumstances the driver (or others who may be dependent upon him driving) will find themselves.
Loss of the driver�s own employment is not normally sufficient to avoid a ban. The magistrates considered that preventing Barnes from driving would cause exceptional hardship to the people on whose behalf he carries out work.
The fifteen points remain on his licence. One more offence which attracts points (before any of the current ones expire) will mean he faces a totting up ban again and he will not be able to use the same argument within three years.
Successful "exceptional hardship" arguments are heard all the time in magistrates' courts. They are all examined individually and it is the view of the Bench on the day that holds sway. Barnes has not received any preferential treatment because of who he is, but he may have employed a decent solicitor - as do most of those who succeed with what is quite a difficult argument .
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Well At Least We Can Expect Poise,...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Labour's Lead Evaporating.....
News20 mins ago
Film, Media & TV35 mins ago
