This morning, our local newspaper carried the story of a young business entrepreneur who was caught driving at 92mph on the Link Road. The magistrates were persuaded by his legal team to impose a fine and 6 penalty points instead of a driving ban. Here are the convincing mitigating circumstances:
In his defence, Lawrence Overend argued that if his client were to lose his driving licence, his business and various charitable projects would suffer significant hardship, as would his non-profit, national anti-bullying campaign.
Mr Overend said Fxxxxx estimated he had driven around 36,000 miles in the past year.
He said: "Mr Fxxxxx feels a great degree of shame for being in court.
"He publicly markets himself as a role model for young people— he doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, and feels coming before the court undermines this in a way."
He added: "Mr Fxxxxx has several well-known celebrity friends."
The magistrates were won over by these pleas and by the fact that a driving ban would not cause any significant hardship to Mr Fxxxxx because he had enough money (£30-million) to employ a chauffeur. That is a very obvious piece of logic er, isn't it? If you couldexplain that to me in a comment, I would be very grateful. In the meantime, I'm off to find myself some celebrity friends. You never know when you might need one, do you?