Guilty by special means/reason?
Discussion
Has anyone ever heard of this phrase?
I cant find any information in relation to it, but it seems to apply in some motoring matters, apparently.
It relates to a guilty plea of an offence, but the court accepts there were special reasons for the offence being committed and as such, the punishment is dumbed down by quite some way.
Is this a load of b
ks or does it exist?
I cant find any information in relation to it, but it seems to apply in some motoring matters, apparently.
It relates to a guilty plea of an offence, but the court accepts there were special reasons for the offence being committed and as such, the punishment is dumbed down by quite some way.
Is this a load of b
ks or does it exist?If it's any help there's this law commission leaflet, where they only mention two instances and that's insanity or what they call automatism (an example of which could be sleepwalking),
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/insanity_...
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/insanity_...
With offences which involve mandatory disqualification (such as drink driving) the court can choose not to disqualify if it finds that there are "special reasons" not to do so. Examples of what might amount to special reasons would include unwittingly consuming drugs or alcohol (eg having your drinks spiked), driving because of a genuine emergency, or only driving a very short distance (eg to move a car which had been left in a dangerous position). If the court finds special reasons it can impose a shorter disqualification than the usual one year minimum, or no disqualification at all.
Special reasons must relate to the offence itself and not to the offender, so the fact that the offender would suffer hardship if he lost his licence can't be a special reason not to disqualify him. (Though it can be relevant to a disqualification due to totting up penalty points, which is a different process).
There's also special reasons not to endorse which can apply to offences which involve penalty points. For example driving without insurance would normally net you a minimum of 6 points, even if you weren't aware that you were uninsured (eg because you forgot your renewal date). However if you had an unusually good reason to believe that you actually were insured (eg you were misled about your insurance status by someone you had good reason to trust) that might be a special reason for the court not to endorse your licence.
Special reasons must relate to the offence itself and not to the offender, so the fact that the offender would suffer hardship if he lost his licence can't be a special reason not to disqualify him. (Though it can be relevant to a disqualification due to totting up penalty points, which is a different process).
There's also special reasons not to endorse which can apply to offences which involve penalty points. For example driving without insurance would normally net you a minimum of 6 points, even if you weren't aware that you were uninsured (eg because you forgot your renewal date). However if you had an unusually good reason to believe that you actually were insured (eg you were misled about your insurance status by someone you had good reason to trust) that might be a special reason for the court not to endorse your licence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff