The question is not as ridiculously stupid as it seems, Postdog as there is a small element of truth to it.
Many drivers are not aware of the full range of penalties available to magistrates and may not realise they can be disqualified for what they may think is a �trivial� offence. Magistrates are therefore reluctant to disqualify somebody in their absence for an offence where a discretionary disqualification is available.
There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, they are mindful of the fact that it is all the more difficult to prove that somebody knew that they had been disqualified if they were not there at the time the order was made. It has to be shown that they knew they were disqualified if a successful prosecution for driving whilst disqualified is to be made out.
Secondly, disqualification automatically invalidates any insurance that may be held. So in the same way as the driver may be driving whilst disqualified without knowing it, he may also be driving uninsured without being aware of it. This is not a good situation for potential victims of any accident he may have.
Lastly, believe it or not, magistrates usually like to hear both sides of any argument before imposing their sentence. Giving defendants the opportunity to appear enables them to give their version of events as well as explaining what effect any sentence might have upon them.
Of course, the line has to be drawn and if the defendant does not appear at the second hearing then sentence is usually passed anyway.
So it is likely that some sort of �urban myth� has built up surrounding this issue where people think if they do not turn up they cannot be banned.