The Supreme Court has ruled against a man who sought to have his six-month disqualification from driving lifted.

In June, David Pilgrim pleaded guilty in Magistrates’ Court to two counts of speeding related to incidents that took place in March and April.

In addition to a combined $780 in fines, Pilgrim was given 13 demerit points, putting him over the 12-point threshold and resulting in senior magistrate Maxanne Anderson banning him from the road for six months.

The court heard that Pilgrim did not complain about the fines or the points and accepted that being caught speeding on multiple occasions reflected poor judgment on his part.

However, he appealed the disqualification from driving on the basis that he needed to drive both for his job and to continue his volunteer work in the community.

In a decision dated August 6, Puisne Judge Alan Richards said that while he was sympathetic towards the appellant, the senior magistrate had no discretion but to impose the disqualification.

Mr Justice Richards said that while the law does allow the judge discretion for “special reasons”, under Bermuda statutes those reasons must relate to the circumstances of the offence rather than those of the offender.

He wrote: “Hardship which the offender may experience as a result, whether exceptional or not, cannot be regarded as relevant under Bermuda’s legislation.”

Mr Justice Richards said that if Bermuda’s legislation was closer to that in Britain, Pilgrim may have been able to argue that a disqualification would cause him exceptional hardship, or that his volunteer work could be a mitigating circumstance.

He added: “Ironically, if there had existed a discretionary power to disqualify for an offence of speeding, the senior magistrate might have chosen to exercise that power, particularly in respect of the second offence.

“If she had done so, she could have limited the effect of the disqualification to the class of vehicle that the appellant was driving at the time of these offences and thus enabled him to continue driving the vehicles his employment and voluntary work required of him.

“Such a disqualification could also have been shorter than six months. Unfortunately for the appellant, a disqualification imposed by reason of Section 4E is not so flexible.”

• 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