Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS PODCAST

Banned driver’s appeal could be a landmark case

First Prev 1 2 Next Last
Carpenter Dean Grant (right) has launched a landmark court case, questioning whether his refusal to do a breath test ought to see him banned from the roads. He argued, through lawyer Marc Daniels (left), that the ban should be waived because it would cause him to lose his job. (Photo by Mark Tatem)

Chief Justice Richard Ground is considering a landmark ruling on whether drunk drivers should get a 12-month ban if it means losing their job.The top judge said a policy decision, which carries “enormous ramifications”, must be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions before he can deliver a final ruling.His direction came as the result of carpenter Dean Grant appealing a year-long ban and $1,000 fine imposed upon him by Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner last July. That punishment is the mandatory minimum under the law.Grant, 42, of Southampton, was stopped by police at the wheel of the Honda CRV vehicle he uses for his job. He denied driving while impaired but admitted refusing to provide a sample of breath. Prosecutors agreed for the impaired driving charge to lie on file.Defence lawyer Marc Daniels said Grant refused to give a breath sample because he did not like the way he was treated by police. He explained the carpenter will lose his job with Fine Woodworking if he loses his licence, because he needs to transport himself and his tools.Mr Daniels asked the magistrate not to impose a driving ban because “special circumstances” applied. He argued that Mr Warner had the power to waive or reduce the standard punishment in such circumstances.Mr Warner said he did not believe he had such a power in drunk driving cases. However, he suggested Mr Daniels should launch a Supreme Court appeal, indicating he would welcome a ruling from the higher court on the topic.Advancing the case before the Chief Justice on Friday, Mr Daniels argued that “special circumstances” should be taken to mean the threat of unemployment during these “tough economic times”.He explained that Grant has two children and his wife is expecting another in July, so he cannot afford to lose his job. He asked for the ban to be overturned and replaced by a higher fine if necessary.However, Mr Justice Ground raised the question of whether “special circumstances” apply to the “personal impact” that a sentence would have on a person. He suggested the law on special circumstances only applies to the level of responsibility a person has for the crime, as stated in English law. He gave, as examples, circumstances where a drunk driver had their drink spiked, or only drove a short way, without putting anyone in danger.Prosecutor Nicole Smith agreed with the defence that the magistrate did have the power to waive the ban due to Grant’s circumstances. She said the court had to balance the severity of the crime against the prospect of unemployment, which could be viewed as a special circumstance.However, she cautioned that overturning the ban altogether could “open the floodgate for other appellants to come before this court and receive, in their eyes, no punishment except a fine for what is really a very serious offence”.Suggesting a shorter ban of around three months could be appropriate, she noted: “The court is still responsible for sending a message to persons who behave in the manner of the appellant.”Mr Justice Ground agreed, saying that overturning the ban could send a signal “that means carpenters and masons can go out and get blind drunk and not worry about the possibility of disqualification”. He went on to stress that his comment had been “overstated for effect”.He asked Ms Smith to discuss the issue with DPP Rory Field and research the English law further before returning to court.“It’s a policy decision of enormous ramifications,” noted the judge, explaining that if Ms Smith stands by the position that the English law does not apply in Bermuda, then she is “raising a major policy issue”.He indicated that at present, he is not inclined to allow Grant’s appeal unless follow-up information from the DPP persuades him otherwise.Ms Smith replied: “The issue is a hot issue of course, and I would like to get it put to bed and put to rest. It’s coming to the courts on a daily basis and it’s too important to leave.”The fine and ban against Grant have yet to be imposed due to the appeal. Mr Justice Ground said that would continue until he makes his ruling, on a date yet to be fixed.

Carpenter Dean Grant (right) has launched a landmark court case, questioning whether his refusal to do a breath test ought to see him banned from the roads. He argued, through lawyer Marc Daniels (left), that the ban should be waived because it would cause him to lose his job. (Photo by Mark Tatem)

A drunk driver told Supreme Court he’d been self-medicating for tooth pain, and should not be punished.

Derek Lambe asked Chief Justice Richard Ground to allow him to carry on driving his car despite a ban imposed by a magistrate as he needs it to get to work.

The 56-year-old pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol when he appeared before Magistrates’ Court on December 12.

Representing himself in appeal proceedings last week, Lambe told Mr Justice Ground he did not deserve the year-long ban and $800 fine he got, and could not afford to pay.

He said he lives in St George’s but works from 6pm until 3am at Fairmont Hamilton Princess hotel as a steward, and needs his car to get to work.

He explained he has heart problems which required triple bypass surgery, so he cannot travel by pedal bike. He added that he takes five different tablets per day and rarely drinks, but said he did so on the date in question due to “very, very” painful surgery to have teeth extracted.

“I didn’t realise I was over the limit. That’s why I submitted to the alco-analyser test, because I thought I would pass,” he explained.

However, the Chief Justice remarked: “You were well over the limit and the offence happened at 3am on a Saturday morning. You were nowhere near your home. You were on Palmetto Road. You told the officer ‘I just left Spinning Wheel’. If you were in pain from your tooth extraction one would expect you to go home and lie down and if you’re going to drink, go home.”

Lambe replied: “I wanted to get out of the house because I was restless and in pain and I didn’t want to stay in a stationary position.”

Prosecutor Geoffrey Faiella argued that the appeal should not be allowed as the magistrate acted properly. However, Mr Justice Ground said he was going to adjourn the case until he’s made a ruling on another matter.

He explained to Lambe that the previous case before him, of carpenter Dean Grant, who refused to comply with a breath test, raised a question over the law as it stands.

The Grant case requires the Chief Justice to decide whether special personal circumstances should allow exemptions from the mandatory driving ban that is currently imposed by the courts in drunk driving cases (see main story).

“I am going to have to adjourn this case until the outcome of the other case,” he explained. “This case is exactly the same issue.”