Proving why you need the licence

13.1Disproportion as a s 10(3)(d) matter

The consequences of conviction, including a mandatory disqualification, are a matter the court may take into account under s 10(3)(d) [review: authority]. The argument is not that hardship excuses the offence; it is that the automatic consequence would impose a burden out of proportion to the criminality involved, and that the s 10 discretion exists for precisely that case. The argument succeeds or fails on evidence.

13.2The evidence that carries weight

The courts have consistently discounted an offender's own assertion of need and have given weight to independent documentary evidence: an employer's letter stating the requirement and the consequence; medical evidence of a dependant's needs or the offender's own; evidence of the absence of alternatives, such as distance from public transport in a regional area; evidence of caring responsibilities. The practitioner assembles this as a discrete bundle with an index, so that the Judge can see at a glance that the assertion is supported.

13.3The regional client

For regional clients the disproportion argument is frequently strongest and least well evidenced. A map, a transport timetable, and a letter from the employer are enough; the practitioner should not assume the Judge knows the local geography.

13.4The limits of the argument

Disproportion does not displace the guideline caution for driving offences, and it will not carry a matter with aggravating features. A client with a prior, a collision, or a high reading should be told that the licence-need evidence goes to the length of disqualification rather than to whether there is one.