As regular readers will know anyone convicted of an endorsable traffic offence has the opportunity to argue special reasons.
A special reason is a mitigating or extentuating circumstance connected to the commission of the offence which, although not a defence in law, is something the court ought properly to take into account when sentencing.
Special reasons relate to the offence, not the offender. Exceptional hardship, which is a separate process, might apply to the offender in some circumstances.
A case was before the court recently where a driver was making a special reasons argument in relation to an offence of driving without insurance. As is often the case with traffic matters, the male driver was unrepresented. For reasons that will become apparent, it is relevant to mention that he was of Asian ethnicity.
Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence. This means, in the simplest of terms, that the mere act of driving without insurance constitutes the offence, irrespective of the reasons (or lack thereof) why.
The vehicle had caught the attention of the police due to the speed it was being driven. The officer conducted a few checks confirming that only a female was insured to drive it. Having seen a male behind the wheel, the officer's suspicions were clearly aroused and he required the vehicle to stop.
The driver confirmed to the officer that it was his mother's vehicle, but insisted he was covered under the terms of the policy for his own vehicle. The officer made a few more checks, which confirmed that the man was not covered to drive his mother's vehicle. He was duly reported for the offence of driving without insurance.
The matter was initially dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure, with the driver admitting the offence and requesting a hearing. At the hearing (see A Day in the Traffic Court) he has indicated his wish to make a special reasons argument. That special reasons argument was now listed before the court.
The basis of the defendant's argument was that he had been misled by his insurance company into believing that the policy covering him to drive his own vehicle also covered him to drive his mother's. This is a fairly common argument heard by the court. If the court is satisfied that the driver has been misled, then it will almost certainly find special reasons.
However, case law has established that being misled means being actively misled - e.g. someone at the insurance company telling the driver directly, either in words or in writing, "yes, you're covered", when actually they are not.
Being actively misled by an insurance company does not happen very often. It is nearly always a case of driver oversight instead of insurance company error. This case was no exception.
Asked why he believed his own policy covered him to drive his mother's vehicle, the reply came that sometime in the distant past he believed he had read it somewhere.
When asked if such a term was written into his current insurance agreement, the reply came that it was not.
When asked if he had carefully read his current insurance agreement before entering into it, the reply came that he had not.
When asked why not, the reply came that the policy had autorenewed so he just assumed it was on the same terms as previously.
Sensing that he might be on a hiding to nothing, the defendant added "I was never speeding. I think I was targeted by the officer on racial grounds."
Suffice to say the court did not find special reasons.
The driver's licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points and he received a Band C fine.
It is a driver's responsibility to ensure that they are correctly insured to drive a vehicle. This means it is their responsibility to read the policy and ask pertinent questions if the vehicle belongs to someone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment