Call for committee to consider ‘GBH by careless driving’ sentences
A Supreme Court judge has invited Bermuda’s Sentencing Guidelines Committee to consider creating a framework to help determine prison terms for causing grievous bodily harm by careless driving.
Puisne Judge Alan Richards raised the issue during the Supreme Court case of Ebony Butterfield, who had pleaded guilty to the offence along with failing to stop after an accident and failing to provide a breath sample.
She was responsible for a crash that resulted life-altering injuries for a teenager who was left disabled in his right arm, and emotionally and psychologically harmed.
Causing GBH by careless driving cases are usually disposed of in the Magistrates’ Court where the maximum penalty is $3,000 and/or three years’ imprisonment, but the case of Butterfield was heard in the Supreme Court where the maximum period of imprisonment is four years.
Mr Justice Richards said there were not many previous cases to set a precedent for what sentence should be given for the offence.
He noted that when such cases are dealt with summarily — in Magistrates’ Court — most result in a fine, albeit often one approaching the summary maximum.
The judge added: “I can recall only two that have resulted in periods of imprisonment and, in one of those, the imprisonment was suspended.”
Mr Justice Richards noted that in Britain, there is an offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.
Serious injury in England means the same as GBH, which he said “is close to the definition that the latter phrase bears here”.
The maximum penalty in the UK is two years’ imprisonment.
Mr Justice Richards added that the Sentencing Council for England and Wales — launched to promote transparency and consistency in sentencing while maintaining independence of the judiciary — had issued a guideline recognising three levels of culpability and two levels of harm, establishing six starting points that range from a medium level community order up to one year’s imprisonment.
Mr Justice Richards said: “Given that the maximum penalty for the equivalent offence in Bermuda is significantly higher (double on a first offence and higher still for a second or third) and given the frequency with which our courts see offences of this kind, it seems to me that custodial sentences should be imposed in a greater proportion of these cases.
“I have considered attempting to set some guidelines myself today, but believe that task is more properly one for the Sentencing Guidelines Committee, recently established by the Chief Justice.
“I respectfully invite that body to give this offence their consideration as soon as practicable.”
Puisne Judge Alan Richards said in the case of Ebony Butterfield, the prosecution’s position was that a custodial sentence was appropriate but that it may be properly suspended.
That had been its position since before Butterfield gave her guilty pleas and, on February 2026, Mr Justice Richards indicated he would not impose a sentence in excess of what the prosecution was seeking.
In the alternative, the prosecution proposed a fine of $10,000 but Mr Justice Richards could not impose such a fine on that count alone.
He explained: “The Traffic Offences (Penalties) Act 1976 does not stipulate a maximum fine in this court and so section 56 (c) (iii) of the Criminal Code applies; the maximum fine for GBH by careless driving in this court is therefore $7,500.”
Mr Justice Richards said that in his submissions, Charles Richardson, for the defence, observed that custody is considered in those cases where GBH has been caused by careless driving which is only just short of dangerous driving.
The judge said: “Dangerous driving requires a greater departure from the standard of a competent and careful driver than careless driving.
“He, therefore, invites me to focus more on Ms Butterfield’s culpability, which he characterises as low, than on the harm her driving caused, which he accepts has been great.”
Mr Justice Richards noted that “interestingly” the legislature had chosen to provide the same maximum penalty for a first offence of GBH by careless driving as for a first offence of GBH by dangerous driving.
He added: “That is so despite dangerous driving (not causing GBH) being imprisonable and careless driving (not causing GBH) being punishable only by way of a fine.
“This appears to me to be a strong indication that the legislature intended that the level of harm in cases of GBH by bad driving is to be regarded as an important factor, whether that driving was dangerous or merely careless.
“Further, it is of course clear that sections 53 to 55 of the Criminal Code require me to have regard to both the degree of responsibility of the offender and the injury caused.”
Butterfield, 33, from Sandys, was handed a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, a three-year road ban and a $1,800 fine for causing GBH by careless driving.
The Sentencing Guidelines Committee is a judicial group that was formed last October by Larry Mussenden, the Chief Justice, to draw up directions on how the courts should sentence offenders.
The committee's initial area of focus was to include “traffic offences which involve GBH and death”.
Mr Justice Mussenden said then: “Two working sessions were held with the Sentencing Guidelines Committee, during which principles, concepts and approaches to guideline development were discussed.
“The committee resolved to focus its initial work on sentencing guidelines in both the Supreme Court and the Magistrates’ Court for offences involving possession of bladed weapons and traffic offences which involve GBH and death, with the intention of issuing guidelines for these offences later this year.”
The Sentencing Guidelines Committee was asked for comment, but none was received by the time of publication.
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
