Please note that articles may contain affilitate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Friday, 25 November 2022

Brass Neck: Merseyside Motoring Menace Loses Exceptional Hardship Appeal

A Merseyside woman has lost her appeal against the Magistrates' Court's decision to refuse her exceptional hardship application.

Louise Whelan, 32, of Wallasey, appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 24th November 2022.

By way of history, Whelan was already disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months when she was convicted of further driving offences at Wirral Magistrates' Court last September.

With 33 penalty points on her licence, stemming from a multitude of previous relevant offences, the court took the view that Whelan should be disqualified for a further 36 months under the totting up rule.

In an effort to avoid a further period of disqualification Whelan made an exceptional hardship application, which was refused by Wirral Magistrates' Court. Her recent appearance at the Crown Court was to appeal that refusal. As discussed in our earlier article, there is an automatic right of appeal for cases dealt with by the Magistrates' Court.

At the appeal Whelan said that her 10 and 12-year-old daughters, who apparently have various mental health difficulties, needed to be taken to school by car. Her older daughter's school had provided a taxi, but the girl often refused to use it.

Speaking at the appeal hearing, Whelan said: "This week (12-year-old) hasn't been going to sleep until 5 am and the school taxi picks up at 7.30 am and we struggle getting her up in the morning. The taxi, she has got to share it with another child and she doesn't like sharing taxis with other children so she's refusing, at the moment, to go to school, which is 12 miles away."

She added: "When she's actually in there she's only making it until 12.30 pm, 1 pm and they are ringing me asking if I will pick her up from school."

Whelan said this was causing problems, because it was interfering with a make-up course she was attending at a local college.

Her younger daughter, who attends a different school to her older sister, is currently being ferried to school by family members.

"It's very difficult having two of them and not having the car makes it difficult for me to get them to where they need to be, and not being able to take them out," explained Whelan.

Callum Ross, representing Whelan, told the court: "The appellant suggests there is hardship which is of an exceptional nature that is being caused to innocent individuals in the form of her two children. The court has heard the children, especially (oldest daughter) is struggling and not attending very well at school.

"The court has heard from Ms Whelan that she thinks being able to drive and take her daughter to school is going to benefit her daughter in terms of accessing her education, which as a young child with learning difficulties is very important."

Mr Recorder Eric Lamb, chairing the appeal bench, said: "Exceptional hardship must be just that. A disqualification from driving will inevitably present hardship to any person."

He said: "There are arrangements in place for (oldest daughter) to be able to attend the school, with a taxi provided. It seems the appellant has already made some application to try to set the taxi back an hour to better fit in with (her daughter's) sleeping pattern. There are travel arrangements in place which allow (oldest daughter), if she can be persuaded, to attend school."

With regards to the youngest daughter, he said: "There are arrangements in place presently for the appellant's mother to perform the duty of getting her to school on time."

Dismissing the appeal, he added: "The evidence leads us to the conclusion that there are arrangements in place for the transport of the children which are already being provided. While there is inevitably hardship in this case, we're not persuaded that this hardship or disqualification is exceptional."

I really cannot believe the sheer brass neck of this woman. The taxi to her eldest daughter's school must be costing the public purse a small fortune, yet she is turning her nose up at the arrangement. If her daughter can't get out of bed, then it is her responsibility (an alien concept, I know) as a parent to ensure that the girl gets enough sleep, does get out of bed, does get to school and does attend for the full day.

I am also incensed that she is trying, yet again, to play the "welfare of my children" card, when clearly - as someone who is a prolific offender and abysmal role model - that is a pretty low priority for her.

Edit (26/11/22): It has been pointed out to me that someone from The Wirral cannot correctly be referred to as a Liverpudlian, as in the original title of this article. Apologies for any offence caused by my rudimentary grasp of geography.

No comments: