“Blunder” Allows Man To Keep Driving Privileges
A 24-year-old Paget resident received a $1,500 fine but was allowed to keep his driving licence after he was allowed to re-plead to charges of driving whilst impaired and refusing to take the alco-analyser test.
Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo said there had been a legal blunder and that disqualifications were no longer mandatory for convictions for driving whilst impaired.
At the start of the proceedings, after the two charges [driving whilst impaired and the alternate charge of refusing to take an alco-analyser test] had been read out to him, Richard Spencer pleaded guilty to the second charge of refusing to take the test.
Magistrate Tokunbo then pointed out the penalty for each was different. He also pointed out that the charges were alternate and that the defendant should only plead to one or the other, but not both.
Assisted by Duty Counsel Oonagh Vaucrosson, Mr Spencer was able to rescind his original guilty plea of guilty to the second offence of refusing to take the test. Mr Spencer then pleaded guilty to the first offence of driving whilst impaired. Mr Spencer said that as an accountant he needed to travel about and needed his bike.
Magistrate Tokunbo then convicted Mr Spencer, fined him $1,500 and allowed him to keep his driving privileges. Crown Counsel Carrington Mahoney expressed surprise at the non-disqualification.
The Magistrate told the Crown Counsel that the law had been recently amended,and that the outcome of the amendment was that the requirement for mandatory disqualification from driving resulting from a conviction for driving whilst impaired had been left out. The Magistrate said that this was a “blunder”.
Mr Spencer was given time to pay his $1,500 fine.
Read More About
Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News
Comments (27)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Articles that link to this one:
- Three Cases Of Drunk Driving Heard In Court | Bernews.com | June 21, 2013
- CADA Applauds Drunk Driving Amendment | Bernews.com | July 29, 2013
Magistrate Tokunbo is incorrect and needs to be dealt with – - – I am tired of these mismatched sentences – - the law is quite clear when it comes to disqualifications – - and if the Magistrate would have looked at the legislation, he would know that specific law/offence was not changed – - idiot.
Da Truth
As far as I know, an accountant does not require a license to do his job. This double standard is ridiculous. And can someone please tell me how this loophole works…I’m sure there are many others who would like to take advantage and have their convictions overturned. If people drive while under the influence, they are breaking the law and should suffer the consequences – there should be no special treatment for certain people. We all need our vehicles to get around and get to work. That’s why you are punished for breaking the law. Otherwise, what’s the point of having laws?
He is a rookie copier salesman not an accountant working for a local company. Not some IB accountant so he does need his wheels. If it were me he should be off the road for a year at least.
Drunk driving needs to be stamped out. This sort of ruling makes a mockery of anyone who has been injured or killed by a drunk driver. They should not only be fined and disqualified, but also have their vehicle confiscated for the period of disqualification. That would make them think twice. If they are then caught again, then jail. If their job depends on having transport, then tough. Use a bus, taxi, bicycle or get fired.
That is some bullsh$$ and you wonder why the country is like it is! One law for rich one for the poor.
So accountants can’t take the bus??
Someone needs to overhaul the judicial system here…it is a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This happens quite a lot people…happened to me!
Just curious about a couple of things,
I don’t think there’s a double standard here people. If the magistrate truly believes that there is a mistake in the re-written drunk driving legislation that allows for people to get out of disqualification then either the magistrate is wrong in his interpretation of the law, or government messed up in the writing of it.
I will agree though that I’m not sure why this is coming up now, when I’m sure Tokumbo has disqualified drivers since the law has been re-written. Maybe he himself has come to reinterpret the law, in which case the crown should appeal.
On a separate note, and I’d like to hear others chime in on this one. Why the inconsistancy in fines?? $1500 in this case and I’ve seen $500, $800 and $1000 fines to different people in the past 12 months. Can the magistrate just indiscriminately hand out fines at his chosing? If that’s the case, doesn’t that lead to the potential of some serious bias/potential discrimation?
I’ve always been confused about the inconsistancy of traffic fines in magistrates court.
Ultimately, I think we can mostly agree that we need to be stricter on drunk drivers and disqualification is warrented.
Couldn’t the Magistrate use his ‘discretion’ and taken him off the road anyway????
White privilege…
The RTA and Traffic Offences (Penalties) Act were amended late 2012. The wording ‘obligatory’ and ‘discretionary’ were omitted from the disqualification periods of sections 35A and 35AA giving the Magistrates full discretion over periods of disqualification. As the disqualification periods under these sections are no longer mandatory, taking all things into account, the Magistrates now have the power to, or not, impose disqualification up to the time stated.
Re the fine amount… I’m assuming the maximum was imposed in lieu of disqualification.
Driving whilst impaired and refusing to take an alco-analyser test are alternate charges: Why? Driving whilst impaired poses a safety threat to the general public. Refusing to take an alco-analyser test wastes the administering officers time (thus wasting tax dollars). Both of these cause a hinderance to the public and should be considered separate charges. Now all a drunk driver has to do to keep their license if caught is refuse the alco-analyser test when caught, plead guilty to the alternate charge of driving whilst impaired and ultimately pay a fine. To make this even more insulting to the public the magistrate, despite calling this situation a legal “blunder”, gave Mr. Spencer a chance to rescind his original plea in order to allow him to keep his license. It’s no wonder people don’t take drunk driving seriously when a magistrate spells out how to keep your license in court! To make matters worse the guy has blatantly lied to the courts by calling himself an accountant when he’s not qualified and has no certifications or ratings! Wake up Bermuda!
He is a copier sales man…..
Jealous much….?
That you’re a salesman, not an accountant like you told the courts? That you got off on a technicality that the magistrate had to point out to you? That our judicial system is a joke? Not particularly…
So you flaunt your luck with arrogance??? Shows you true character as a man…good luck with that.
you do know you can put whatever name you want on here…… good chance that is not really him
Correct
The three amigo’s must be proud of you Richard
I can think of no excuse as to why Magistrate Tokunbo could not take ths person off the road. Although the legislation was messed and did not make it mandatory to take him off the road, it was still within his power to do so. The law does say he can’t take him off the road, so he should have.
That comment earlier was not me, I never claimed to be an accountant I told the court account manager (media interpreted it how they want) I wouldn’t write suck a ridiculous comment.
“such”
Apparently the person reporting on this case, or the arresting officer, incorrectly wrote down the young man’s job. He is not an accountant, but an account manager – a salesman for a local office supplies firm – and drives a truck around for his job. Someone needs to pay more attention to details. Either way – you break the law, you take the consequences. He got lucky this time.
To clarify as it can be confusing…our report isn’t incorrect as we never stated he was an accountant.
We reported that he told the Court he was an accountant and needed his bike to travel – which is completely accurate. That is what he said…