A magistrate and a defence lawyer are calling for a better way of dealing with repeat drink-driving offenders.

It comes after Louis Somner was fined $4,000 and banned from the roads for five years for his third impaired driving offence.

Saul Dismont, Somner’s lawyer, said handing out fines and taking offenders off the roads was not an effective solution when they were suffering from an addiction and disease.

Appearing in Magistrates’ Court yesterday, Somner, who is an organiser for the Bermuda Industrial Union, admitted failing to provide a sample of breath for analysis in Pembroke on June 7. The Crown accepted his plea and offered no evidence on the alternative charge of driving while impaired.

The 56-year-old also pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified, failing to stop for police and not wearing a seatbelt in Warwick on the same date. Prosecutor Loxly Ricketts told the court that police saw Somner driving without his seatbelt fastened near the junction of St Mary’s Road and Middle Road.

They made repeated attempts to stop Somner without success. He continued to Khyber Pass and was apprehended when an oncoming car brought him to a halt.

The officers noticed that Somner appeared to be intoxicated and he told them that he had been disqualified from driving for 18 months.

He was taken to Hamilton Police Station, where he refused to provide a sample of breath for analysis.

In court yesterday, Mr Dismont said Somner had suffered from a drinking problem for several years and that he “made a stupid, drunk decision”.

He added that this was why it was “essential that his alcoholism is addressed”, and requested that the matter be referred to Drug Treatment Court, which he said now accepted defendants who admitted drink-driving offences.

This would not only help Somner get the necessary treatment, Mr Dismont said, but would also benefit the public by dealing with his drinking problem and stopping him from reoffending.

Magistrate Archibald Warner, however, said the programme was not designed or equipped to deal “chronic drink-drive offenders” and called for a more “appropriate programme” to be implemented.

Drink-driving is a “big, big, big problem in Bermuda”, Mr Warner said.

“Disqualification alone, as seen by the number of repeat offenders, is not a silver bullet.”

He also said that treatment combined with a period of disqualification would be more effective than heavier fines.

However, Mr Warner said that he would not exercise his discretion and transfer the matter because he was not satisfied that there was an appropriate regime in place to deal with such offenders.

He instead handed Somner a $4,000 fine and banned him from the roads for five years.

He also fined him $500 for driving while disqualified, $300 for failing to stop for police and $100 for not wearing a seatbelt.

But he said the sentence was an example of the “draconian, monetary penalties” put in place to try and deter repeat offenders.

“The treatment aspect would cost less than $5,000 and be more effective,” he added.

Speaking to The Royal Gazette after the court case, Mr Dismont said he would be appealing the sentence with the view to getting Somner admitted to Drug Treatment Court.

“Handing out fines and disqualifying people is not effective as can be seen by the amount of people that keep coming back and back and back again,” Mr Dismont said.

“And this includes people who have been to prison, because alcoholism is a disease.

“Mr Somner is taking a stand and he hopes that the community can benefit from this bad situation.”

Mr Dismont said some of his previous clients, who were in court for the same offences, had been referred to Drug Treatment Court, which he said had a success rate of at least 75 per cent for offenders who completed the programme.

“Every participant has an individual treatment plan tailor-made for them and the whole design of the treatment plan is to assist them in their recovery.

“You’re not getting off scot-free. You have to appear every week before Drug Treatment Court and you have to stay for the whole of the session. You have random urine tests, you have to report to your caseworker regularly and the programme can go on for up to three years.”

He added that sanctions can also be put in place if offenders are found to be in breach of the programme.