29/05/2025
Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship: A Practical Comparison
When driving offences are dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court, two legal concepts are commonly relied upon to avoid or reduce disqualification: Special Reasons and Exceptional Hardship. Though often confused, these arguments serve very different purposes and are grounded in different aspects of the law.
Special Reasons
Where Special Reasons are claimed, the court’s attention is drawn to the specific circumstances under which the offence occurred. These arguments are not concerned with the personal situation of the defendant but rather with the event itself that led to the commission of the offence.
According to *R v Wickens [1958] 42 Cr App R 236*, for Special Reasons to be considered, the following must be shown:
- A mitigating factor must be present.
- That factor must not constitute a legal defence.
- The reason must be directly related to the offence.
- It must be something the court ought to take into account when sentencing.
Instances where Special Reasons have been accepted include driving only a very short distance, being misled about insurance validity, or responding to a genuine emergency. However, factors such as job loss, drinking without knowing how long alcohol remains in the system, or driving after a social occasion typically do not qualify.
Exceptional Hardship
In contrast, Exceptional Hardship arguments arise under the ‘totting up’ rules when a driver accumulates 12 or more penalty points within three years. The focus here is on the personal and third-party consequences of disqualification.
As set out in *section 35(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988*, Exceptional Hardship must be proven to exist and must be more than mere inconvenience. Arguments previously used within three years cannot be repeated, and routine claims about work or income loss will not be sufficient unless their impact can be shown to be exceptional.
Commonly accepted scenarios include the threat of job loss affecting a family, a dependent requiring ongoing medical transport, or a business collapse that would affect others. Each argument must be supported by documentary evidence and must be shown to the court on the balance of probabilities.
Conclusion
Though both routes can provide relief from disqualification, their application and legal basis differ significantly. Special Reasons relate strictly to the facts of the offence, while Exceptional Hardship focuses on the broader impact of the penalty. Understanding this distinction is essential for effective advocacy in motoring offence cases.
¹ R v Wickens [1958] 42 Cr App R 236. ² Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.35(4).
