‘I feel broken,’ says Kirsty. ‘Not as broken as the speed limit,’ says judge.
Radio and television presenter Kirsty Gallacher has been banned from driving for six months after being caught at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone.
What to some people might sound like a minor offence became a central talking point. Here’s why. She already had nine points. These extra three pushed her to twelve, triggering the automatic “totting-up” ban.
In court, she argued ‘exceptional hardship’, citing her brain tumour, hearing loss, and balance issues from radiotherapy. Notwithstanding, she continued to work on her radio show and television gigs. She also revealed she was recently the victim of an unprovoked assault, leaving her terrified of public transport. That’s bad. But why do you think Uber was invented?
As a single mum, she said losing her licence would make school runs, hospital visits and work incredibly difficult. Judge Sharma was sympathetic but decided her income of £150,000 a year from presenting on Gold Radio, and her ability to pay for taxis meant the hardship was not ‘exceptional’. So, now she is griping that the judge showed her ’no empathy’. Is she having a laugh? Plus, she told the court that she had around £80,000 in savings. And she lives in a luxury home in Maidens Green, Berkshire and here she is pleading some sort of poverty. Is she really having a laugh?
‘I am just an ordinary mum,’ she wails. No, you are not, missus. Nothing ordinary about living in a luxury house, in a fancy part of the country, and earning £150,000 plus additional earnings.
She was banned for six months and fined over £1000. She is lucky it wasn’t more.
The public response has been divided. Many feel compassion for her health struggles and trauma. Others argue that the law must be applied consistently, regardless of personal circumstances.
But, listen peeps, she was still able to work. There’s nothing in the court case that said that because of her health and trauma, she was incapacitated. She was still able to drive. At speed!
There are two ways to look at Kirsty Gallacher’s driving ban. The first is the legal way: she hit twelve points, and the rules are the rules. Dem is da rules. The second is the human way: she’s battling a brain tumour, recovering from an assault, raising two boys, and trying to keep her life together.
Whilst sometimes the law can be an ass (and don’t I know it – ahem), this case shows that the law can be fair without always feeling kind. Anybody who has nine points on their licence and has family responsibilities knows that they have to tread (or drive) very carefully or face the consequences of a ban. In my legal experience, even people who drive for a living would still be disqualified for such a totting-up offence.
Kirsty Gallacher said the ban would severely disrupt her life as a single mum and broadcaster. How?
The court acknowledged her pain, her fear, and her medical challenges.
However, the judge ruled that although her difficulties were real, they did not meet the legal threshold for exceptional hardship because of her income and ability to use alternative transport. Her exceptional hardship plea was hence dismissed because she earns enough money to book taxis. That’s fair enough, methinks!
