Why Choose Us
- Ranked in the top 3 law firms by Trustpilot
- Nationwide Legal Coverage
- Free Consultation
- Fixed Fee Terms
- Competitive Rates
- Flexible Payment Plans
- Trusted Legal Care
- UK’s Leading Motoring Solicitors
5 out of 5
Our customers rate us
“EXCELLENT”
AS SEEN ON
28.03.2024
Special Reasons: How a Solicitor Can Help Reduce Your Motoring Offence Sentence
Mitigating circumstances and special reasons are factors that may lead to a reduced sentence or penalty for a motoring offence. These circumstances do not excuse the offence but may be considered by the Court when determining the appropriate punishment.
Special reasons are specific circumstances that if accepted by the court can result in a reduced or avoided penalty, such as avoiding disqualification from driving. One example could be if the driver was faced with a genuine emergency such as rushing someone to the hospital, it may be considered a special reason.
Submitting mitigating circumstances or special reasons does not guarantee a reduced sentence as every case will be considered individually by the court.
If you are guilty, or believe that you are guilty of an offence, but believe that there are “mitigating circumstances” that might persuade the Court to not impose a penalty or if you believe that the penalty that you face is unfair, then please get in contact with our office for a free consultation.
At Caddick Davies Solicitors, we have a team of specialist motor defence lawyers who specialise in “special reasons” arguments.
We will talk you through the offence you have been charged with and we will advise on your prospects of success at court. You can contact our office for a free consultation on 0151 944 4967.
Whilst the legal basis for a “special reasons” argument is derived from statute, a clear definition of “special reasons” was established in the case of R v Wickens (1958) which states that four requirements must be present in order for “special reasons” to exist:
In order for the Court to even consider whether a “special reason” exists, and therefore for them to consider whether they should exercise discretion to not impose a penalty on a person’s licence, all four of the above factors must be present.
Mitigating or extenuating circumstances are details that may be important for fully understanding the events that led up to or caused the commission of the offence. Such circumstances may indicate to the Court that the offending behaviour was less serious, and therefore deserves a lesser or no punishment.
An application for ‘special reasons’ is usually most appropriate in circumstances where an offence may have been committed on a technical basis, but there may be significant mitigation to be considered in connection with a lack of knowledge/intent, little or no harm caused, or less moral culpability associated with the offence.
“Special reasons” arguments are about asking the Court about moral culpability and whether it is fair in the circumstances to endorse an individual’s licence.
“Special reasons” can only apply in circumstances where someone is guilty of an offence. Therefore, if you are “not guilty” or have a valid defence available to you, then “special reasons” cannot exist.
The mitigating circumstances that took place must have caused the offence to have been committed – there must be a causal link. In most cases this will be obvious, for example, speeding to take someone to hospital in a genuine emergency – the genuine emergency (the mitigating circumstances) caused the speeding (the offence).
This last factor is vague, and effectively means that the mitigating circumstances are so significant, so unusual or are deserving of sympathy, that the Court should, at the very least, consider them before issuing a penalty.
Read on for further insight into the Court’s power to exercise discretion under “special reasons” and some examples of when “special reasons to avoid driving disqualification” may exist.
Where an offence carries the mandatory endorsement of penalty points on a person’s driving licence or a mandatory disqualification from driving then the Court can exercise discretion to not impose such if there are “special reasons” for not doing so pursuant to Section 34 and Section 44 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
The powers under Section 34 and 44 enable the Court to either reduce the penalty or impose no penalty at all. Where penalty points are mandatory, the Court can either impose no penalty points or the minimum number of penalty points available for that offence.
Where a disqualification is mandatory the Court can either impose no disqualification or a lesser disqualification, and if they deem fit, penalty points instead.
If the Court find “special reasons”, and they do wish to exercise discretion to not impose penalty points and/or a disqualification, then they have two options upon sentencing:
The Court does not have to impose no penalty – even if they believe that “special reasons” exist. The Court’s power under Sections 34 and 44 is discretionary, and therefore, even if the Court does believe that “special reasons” exist the Court does not have to do anything and can still choose to impose a penalty. Whilst this is rare, it is perfectly acceptable.
There are some mitigating circumstances, that are generally accepted to be a “special reason” for most motoring offences:
The following situations cannot be considered a ‘special reason’:
“Special reasons” can be used in any situation and for any offence, but there are some specific examples that are usually accepted as “special reasons” for certain offences.
There are some common situations where the Court will usually find “special reasons” for driving without insurance including;
The important case for “special reasons” for driving without insurance is Rennison v Knowler [1947]. It says that the Court can find “special reasons” if:
So, just believing you were insured isn’t enough. Your belief must be “reasonable” in the situation.
Some examples are:
Just not reading your policy probably won’t be enough. The Court thinks it’s the driver’s responsibility to make sure they’re insured or have the right cover. But it depends on the specific situation in each case.
A genuine, honest, and reasonable belief isn’t the only “special reason” for driving without insurance. Driving a short distance can also be a “special reason” (Reay v Young [1949]).
But it depends on the specific situation in each case, like how “short” the distance was, how dangerous it was, how much traffic there was, and why the person drove in the first place.
For example, in Gott v Chisholm (1950), the Court didn’t find “special reasons” when an unskilled, unsupervised driver drove “only a short distance” but had an accident.
There are some situations that simply can’t be “special reasons” for driving without insurance:
If you’re driving for work and you get stopped for driving without insurance, it’s important to know that you can’t use “special reasons”. Instead, you have a defence to the charge if you can prove all of the following:
There are a number of common circumstances that the Court will generally find “special reasons” for a offence of speeding, namely:
The most common example of “special reasons” for an offence of speeding is where a person has driven in a genuine “emergency” as per Whittal v Kirby [1946].
This can be difficult to establish as the Court will want to be satisfied that it is a genuine emergency and will therefore enquire whether other alternatives were available e.g. calling an ambulance.
In some cases, if the mitigating circumstances are so strong and if the offence was minor in nature, a person inadvertently exceeding the speed limit can be a “special reason”.
For example, in the case of Marks v West Midlands Police [1981] the Court concluded that the lack of an intention to commit an offence had to be weighed against the problem faced by the Defendant. In this case, the Defendant exceeded a motorway speed limit of 70mph by 10mph.
He was worried by his blind, incontinent, 80-year-old passenger becoming ill and was thereby not aware of exceeding the speed limit, being anxious to reach the nearest motorway service area. The Court held that the Defendant inadvertently exceeding the speed limit in this case was a special reason within the context of road traffic offences.
As with all applications for “special reasons”, each case will be judged on its own merit and the circumstances of the particular case.
Find out more: Driving points accumulation and what you can do about it.
There are no recorded court cases that support “special reasons” for using a mobile phone while driving. This is because most of these cases are handled in the Magistrates’ Court, and their results aren’t recorded. Cases need to be taken to a higher court to be considered and recorded.
Here are a few examples of situations that might be successful in the Magistrates’ Court:
It’s important to remember that if you used your phone to call emergency services, this would be a defence, not a “special reason”.
There are several historical situations where the Court has been willing to find “special reasons” for the offence of driving while unfit due to drink and drugs. These offences usually happen when a person is under the legal limit but their driving isn’t acceptable, so they are considered “unfit”.
Examples include:
However, not eating enough food is not a “special reason” for being unfit to drive, according to the case of Archer v Woodward [1959].
There are several common situations where the Court will usually find “special reasons” for a drink driving offence:
If it can be proven, through expert, scientific, or factual evidence, that the breath test result showing a person is over the legal limit was due to “mouth alcohol” from regurgitation (vomiting). So, if you brought up alcohol from your stomach during the breath test and it affected the reading, this can be considered a “special reason”. This can be difficult to prove and would require an expert witness and evidence to show that regurgitation happened.
A person can establish “special reasons” for drink driving offences if their drinks were spiked. According to the case of Pugsley v Hunter [1973], this can be determined if the offender can prove that:
This can apply to situations like:
This can also be difficult to prove and may require:
It’s usually hard for someone to prove they didn’t know they had consumed alcohol, especially if they start feeling the effects. But it depends on the specific situation.
This does not apply to:
The Court can find “special reasons” for drink or drug driving if the person has only driven a short distance. However, this depends on the specific facts of each case.
The case of Chatters v Burke [1986] set out several factors the Court must consider in motoring law cases:
There’s no set definition of a “short distance”, so this will be judged on a case-by-case basis, along with all other circumstances.
Driving in a “sudden medical emergency” can be considered a “special reason” for drink driving, according to Brown v Dyerson [1969]. However, this is the most difficult situation to establish and depends on the urgency of the emergency or the need to drive in each case.
In the past, Courts have made conflicting decisions in similar situations. This shows how “special reasons” are discretionary and how no two cases are exactly the same.
It is important to note that “special reasons” applications are not restricted to the offences/circumstances outlined in this post, nor do the circumstances have to be supported by a previous case to be submitted.
Provided that all four of the criteria laid down in R v Wickens (1958) has been met, the Court does not have to be presented with other case law to support your argument in road traffic offence matters.
It is entirely normal and conceivable that mitigating circumstances have resulted in an offence taking place, and the Court has not had to deal with such circumstances before.
Yes. If you successfully use a “special reasons” argument, you will still be convicted because you are guilty of the offence. For serious offences like dangerous driving, drink/drug driving, failure to provide a specimen, and failing to stop/report an accident, the conviction will go on your criminal record.
For less serious offences like speeding, driving without insurance, using a mobile phone while driving, and careless driving, which are all road traffic offences, the conviction won’t appear on your criminal record. However, it may still show up on enhanced DBS checks.
Yes. Even if you successfully use a “special reasons” argument, the offence will still appear on your driving record. However, there usually won’t be any penalty points or disqualification attached to it.
At Caddick Davies Solicitors, we have a team of specialist motor defence lawyers who are experts in preparing and presenting “special reasons” arguments in court. We understand the complexities of these cases and have a proven track record of successfully assisting clients in avoiding penalties such as disqualification or points on their licence.
From the most straightforward to the most intricate cases, we are dedicated to providing personalised support and guidance. We begin every enquiry with an informal discussion to gain a thorough understanding of your unique circumstances and to address any questions you may have in complete confidence.
If you believe that there are mitigating circumstances or “special reasons” that should be considered in your case, please don’t hesitate to contact our office for a free consultation on 0151 944 4967.
Why Choose Us
We have been successfully representing clients in motoring courts nationwide
Contact us for a free consultation, our expert solicitors will be able to discuss your case and advise on legal options.
Birmingham
Bradford
Bristol
Carlisle
Cardiff
Chelmsford
Huddersfield
Hull
Manchester
Liverpool
Leeds
London
Newcastle
Norwich
Nottingham
Sheffield