A MINORITY REPORT APPROACH TO AVOIDING LENIENCY ON DRIVING BANS

In order for a democratic society to function as such the law must reflect the attitudes of that society to particular actions which might be detrimental to members of that society individually or as a group.  There are as so often is the case exceptions to the rule.  Hanging was suspended  (pardon the pun)  in 1965 when arguably there was no public mandate so to do but the government at the time led rather than followed public sentiment. It was abolished four years later. Offences for errant motoring activities have been around since the first cars appeared on the streets around 120 years ago when a driver was fined for refusing to identify himself to a constable. 

Since then the numbers of such offences have reached the hundreds.  Events and improved data collections have refined both the definition of offences and their sentencing.  Generally it should be assumed that the purpose is to deter, punish and rehabilitate offenders just as with much other legislation.  To do that a firm statistical basis on which to formulate such legislation is required.  Cost benefit analyses and other parameters are weighed, studied, and predicted to ensure maximum efficiency in the practice of new regulations.  The prevention of harm to individuals one would assume is a guiding light to those who are involved in this task. One such volume of information to that end  is already within the millions of data points collected by the MOJ: Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship statistics. The latter topic has been discussed here at length and might be accessed by those two words being inserted in the search box. 

Between 7,000 and 8,000 motorists in England per year who have totted-up more than 12 points on their driving licence avoid disqualification by using that loophole in the legal system. A total of 142,275 people between 2017 and 2021 were banned from driving after accruing a licence-losing volume of points.However, a further 35,569 were allowed to remain on the road having told magistrates they will face 'exceptional hardship' if they were unable to continue driving. 

Driving offences where special reasons are applicable can be argued for any Motoring Offence. However these reasons are commonly used for: 

Drink Driving 

Failing to Provide a Specimen 

Speeding 

Driving without Insurance

Failing to Provide Driver Details. 

For special reasons in a specialist hearing to be accepted by the court the circumstances relied upon need to satisfy the criteria below;
 

Must be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance
Must not amount in law to a defence to the allegation Must be directly connected with the commission of the offence
Must be something which the Court ought to properly take into consideration when imposing sentence.

Whilst the statistics of exceptional hardship are widely available those for special reasons are locked somewhere in the bowels of the computers at Petty France where perhaps an expert researcher which excludes me might find them. However this post is not primarily concerned with numbers.  It is that knowing the numbers and circumstances of both get outs who go on to commit much more serious motoring offences would be an enabler in predicting those of them who would indeed be a future danger to life and limb both to themselves and innocent others. To that end a third party has recently made such a Freedom of Information request.   The MOJ has admitted it knows the numbers of those who have saved themselves from a driving disqualification by the successful employment of the above two arguments and have later convicted of having committed further serious imprisonable motoring offences  at the crown court especially causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving but that the cost of relating them to their  driving records of previously escaping a ban is beyond the statutory allowance of £600. 

This appears to be a deliberate avoidance of a statistical analysis which just might offer clues to those who subsequent to avoiding a totting disqualification nevertheless show indications of being possible future offenders in more serious matters of breaking motoring laws. It might also give reasons to legislate so that the two arguments are placed under a more stringent basis so that fewer totters are excused their just deserts and that that dangerous minority is less likely to drive in a manner dangerous to others. For movie aficionados my proposal might be termed the Minority Report approach.  Now that would mean an incoming Secretary of State for Justice actually doing something tangible to improve the well being of the public instead of the seemingly unending press releases his department is expert in providing.