Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley's decision two weeks ago to reduce the $19,250 in fines meted out to businessman Richard Cox for failing to license and insure his car has brought common sense into the issue of electronic vehicle registration fines.

Now, it is to be hoped, the law and sentencing practices will be modified to a level that still provides an adequate deterrent but is not potentially destructive to the person involved.

That is not to say that a failure to license a car – and more importantly to insure it – is not serious. The vehicle, without being tested, could turn out to be unsafe. Should the driver of an uninsured vehicle be involved in an accident that caused serious damage or injury, then the victim would have no recourse for recovery of costs from the person responsible.

It is also fair to say that too many people, like Mr. Cox, were able to drive the roads of Bermuda without fear of being caught, in part because the Police traffic units are a shadow of their former selves. So the EVR system itself is a good, and apparently foolproof one, although given that there are not that many devices, where you live may well have more to do with how many times you get caught than any other factor.

And it must be said that the publicity surrounding the fines, including one case totalling $63,000, must be a tremendous deterrent and will surely have encouraged many people to make sure their vehicles are relicensed before the deadline.

However, while the law itself is apparently legal, the sizes of the fines and the lack of discretion afforded to magistrates means that the penalties are out of proportion to the crime itself. Fines of half the size or less would provide just as adequate a deterrent. This is a classic case of legal overkill.

As Mr. Justice Kawaley said last week: :"In terms of an instinctual response to the totality of the fines imposed, a total of $19,250 for traffic offences not involving damage to person or property, or driving under the influence of drink or drugs, undoubtedly causes the eyebrows to raise quizzically.

"In the present case, there is no suggestion that the appellant is unable to pay the fines, but the total amount which is payable represents almost the entire cost of a modest new car or a less than modest second hand car." Mr. Cox may be well able to pay the fines. But others will not be. Last month, this newspaper featured Nelson Pearman on the front page, who had failed to license his car because he used the money to visit his dying grandmother.

Mr. Pearman is of limited financial means and is disabled. A back condition means he is unable to use public transport. His car is literally his lifeline. But faced with $17,000 in fines in his case, it is more than possible that he would have to sell the vehicle to pay the fines. He readily conceded his guilt when he appeared in court, but a $17,000 fine hardly seems in proportion to the offence.

What the fines did appear to be was a nice little wheeze for Government, which has collected a quarter-million dollars worth of fines since July when the system was introduced. To be sure, this will not last forever, and it is not clear how long the money will stay in Government coffers since Mr. Justice Kawaley's judgment will now set off a wave of appeals.

It is likely that his own judgment will be appealed, and that is no bad thing because it is important that a clear and final decision be reached so that reasonable sentencing guidelines can be laid down. For now, however, it is good to see that common sense and natural justice are still alive in the court system.