Skip to main content

27.12.24

Motoring offences and ‘Special Reasons’: Guilty of an offence, but driving licence left unblemished

For some defendants convicted of driving offences, the law recognises that their driving licences should not be endorsed. For example, if a 'Special Reason' is established in a case involving an offence which normally carries an obligatory disqualification, the Court will exercise its discretion not to impose a period of disqualification. Similarly, for offences which carry obligatory endorsement of penalty points, by finding a Special Reason, a court is no longer obliged to impose them.

What is a Special Reason?

A Special Reason is an exception found by the Court relating to the particular facts of an offence as to why the defendant should not have his licence endorsed or suffer an obligatory disqualification.

A definition is provided in the case of R v Crossen [1939] 1 NI 106:

“A‘ special reason’ within the exception is one which is special to the facts of the particular case, that is special to the facts which constitute the offence. It is, in other words, a mitigating or extenuating circumstance, not amounting in law to a defence to the charge, yet directly connected with the commission of the offence and one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing punishment. A circumstance peculiar to the offender as distinguished from the offence is not a ‘special reason’ within the exception.”

 The definition was further clarified in the case of R v Wickens (1958) 42 Cr. App. R. 236 and held to require the following four minimum “criteria”:

(a) be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance;
(b) not amount in law to a defence to the charge;
(c) be directly connected with the commission of the offence; and
(d) be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when

Crucially, a Special Reason needs to be related to the facts of a particular offence, which mitigates its seriousness. It does not relate to the circumstances of a defendant. Therefore personal mitigation is irrelevant to a court finding a Special Reason.

In light of the above definition, there is no hard and fast rule as to what amounts to a special reason and it is very much down to persuading the court on a case-by-case basis.

Special Reasons in practice – what happens?

When a court finds that a Special Reason exists, it is no longer required to impose what would otherwise be an obligatory endorsement or disqualification.

Significantly, in the case where a court decides not to endorse a licence with penalty points, it must either impose no points or impose the obligatory minimum amount. There is no middle ground, in that the court cannot decide to impose a lesser number of points than the otherwise obligatory minimum amount.

The onus is on the defendant to prove to the Court that the facts giving rise to the Special Reason exists on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, this is likely to involved the defendant giving evidence on oath, and potentially calling and presenting relevant supporting evidence.

Examples of Special Reasons

The extensive caselow surrounding Special Reasons often provides guidance on what might be considered a Special Reason.

No Insurance

In the case of Rennison v Knowler [1948] 1 K.B. 488¸ it was held that:

“It may be that if a man who felt he did not understand his policy took the advice of someone who was apparently in a position to explain it, such as an insurance agent, and received a wrong opinion, this might be considered a special reason, or again, if the question turned on some obscure phrase which might lead a person to believe he was covered when a court ultimately decided that he was not. Those are questions which can be decided if and when they arise.”

This opens the door for a court to find a Special Reason when a person is convicted of driving without insurance but has been misled by his insurance company, or for example, when payment has been taken but the company has failed to put in place cover.

Driving while disqualified

The case of Robertson v McNaughton [1993] SLT 1143 provides authority for the argument in certain circumstances when unbeknown to them a driver is disqualified and they are subsequently found to be driving while disqualified, there may be a Special Reason available to them to avoid receiving a further period of disqualification or receiving penalty points.

Driving with excess alcohol

Spiked drinks

The case of Pugsley v Hunter [1973] RTR 284 establishes that a court may find Special Reasons to exist in a case of driving with excess alcohol when the driver has had his drink(s) spiked.  However, the accused must prove on the balance of probabilities:

(a) their drink was spiked;

(b) they did not know or suspect that their drink was spiked; and

(c)i if their drink had not been spiked, that the alcohol level in their blood would not have exceeded the prescribed limit.

Driving in an emergency

Driving in an emergency can also amount to a Special Reason. In the case of Brown v Dyerson [1969] 1 Q.B. 45, although it was found that the defendant had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish a Special Reason, it was held

“there can be no doubt that in a suitable case a medical emergency could constitute a special reason, if by "medical emergency" one means an unexpected situation arising in which a man who has been drinking but not intending to drive is impelled to drive a motor car by a sudden medical necessity.”

Short distance driven

The case of James v Hall [1972] R.T.R. 228 provides authority for the basis that shortness of distance driven can amount to a Special Reason. In this case, the defendant drove his car a matter of yards rom the road on to a driveway and the court found the very short distance driven to be a sufficient reason not to disqualify him.

 

Send us an emailcomplete our online enquiry form or call us on 020 7183 8950  to find out how our specialist drink driving solicitors can help if you are being investigated or prosecuted for an alleged motoring offence. 


Share


Legal Disclaimer

Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.