see also Kirk v Procurator Fiscal Ayr XJ 2831/99; McPake v Lees, supra)
driving licence will cause hardship to your immediate family. In
such circumstances, exceptional hardship may exist (Howdle v
Davidson 1994 SCCR 571; Railton v Houston 1986 SCCR 428; c.f.
Millar v Ingram 1986 SCCR 437; see also Ewen v Orr 1993 SCCR
1015 where the High Court held that hardship had to extend
beyond the accused and his immediate family). In view of this
conflicting authority, welcome clarification was provided in Brennan
v McKay 1997 SLT 603. The High Court applied the decision in
Howdle, accepting that hardship did not have to extend beyond the
driver and his immediate family, the question being one of fact
and degree.
only financial support for his family and will lose his or her job as a
result of losing the right to drive. A typical example is where the
loss of employment results in an inability to pay the mortgage or
other debts, with the result that the family home is at risk . Thus,
in Allan v Barclay 1986 SCCR 111 the High Court held that the
fact that the accused was likely to lose his job was not in itself
exceptional hardship. However the fact that the family home
would be placed in jeopardy (together with an inability to repay a
bank loan taken out to furnish the home) meant that there was
exceptional hardship. Similarly, in Howdle v Davidson, supra, the
accused's garage business would have been at risk, leaving his
family without any income. The High Court held that, together