I'm confused by this article. It sounds like the normal fine is £65 and 3 points. But the judge says he has "a clear history" and had a reason to be speeding, so "that can't happen here." Instead, he gave Moron a £650 fine and 5 points.

Also, the offender's name is Moron, which is funny but not particularly relevant.

If the judge felt he had a mitigating explanation, why is the penalty worse than normal?