A BUSINESSMAN has been excused a driving ban after a court heard that it could hamper his two struggling firms.
Tim Godkin owns property worth £3 million in Amber Valley and also hires out part of his Butterley home for weddings and conferences.
But Derby Crown Court heard he had been hit by the recession and owed £2 million to Santander Bank.
The 53-year-old's barrister, Mark Achurch, argued that a 12-month driving ban, previously imposed by magistrates, would impact on his businesses.
He said that in his role running Godkin Holdings, his client needed to drive to premises if a burglar alarm went off at night.
And that driving was necessary to "source wine and food and move furniture about" for his second firm, BGM Predecessors, which hires out part of his home – Butterley Grange, Derby Road, Butterley, near Ripley – for weddings and conferences.
The court heard if the wedding venue venture failed, it could damage a catering firm which Godkin uses. Mr Achurch said they employed "a large number of temporary staff who would otherwise be unable to work".
He said: "He is trying as a sole trader to keep the two businesses alive. The businesses are run on very tight margins."
The court heard Godkin was given a 12-month driving ban by magistrates for failing to say who was driving one of his cars, which was clocked for speeding while he was abroad on March 23. Several people were allowed to use the vehicle.
He already had nine points on his licence for previous motoring offences.
Judge Stuart Rafferty QC, sitting with two JPs, upheld Godkin's appeal. He said that at the earlier hearing, magistrates had failed to pay enough attention to problems caused by a disqualification, which also included difficulties in getting two of his children to school.
He said: "His financial circumstances appear attractive at first sight but are straitened.
"We are satisfied the bench fell into error in not concluding this appellant would face exceptional hardship."
He pointed out that Godkin still had nine points on his driving licence – and could not use the same explanation again to avoid a ban.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
