General's chambers has challenged them "to make his day'' and follow through with that appeal.

Mr. Philip Perinchief was disqualified from driving his MGB sports car for one month and fined $400 for speeding at 62 kph.

But he was only disqualified from automobiles. He is still allowed to ride a motor or auxiliary cycle.

Mr. Perinchief claimed he was merely using the law as it was amended. "If the Attorney General's chambers has a problem with the legislation they must draft it again,'' he said."The judicial system must not leave loopholes so wide that buses and steamships can pass through.

"As an officer of the court it is my job to point out the loopholes so they can redraft the law.

"I am merely using the law as it stands.

"They had 10 days (to appeal) and as far as I know it has not been considered,'' he said. "It is rather naive to think that the discretion of a magistrate can be appealed. The law gives a magistrate discretion. How does one appeal that discretion? "I think it is rather odd that it was the Attorney General's chambers that drafted the legislation in the first place. All this talk about them looking into it is really just for public consumption.'' Mr. Perinchief said he was dealt with harshly because the normal fine for a first offence at 62 kph is $235.

"I was fined $400 and disqualified for one month,'' he said. "Traffic law is very difficult. It should not be handled in such a cavalier fashion because it impacts in a very real way on the man on the street.'' The traffic law was amended on June 29. Anyone caught speeding before that date does not have the benefit of the discretion that a magistrate can now use. Under the old law there were set fines and disqualifications.

Since the amendment, magistrates have been able to look at specific facts and circumstances before handing down their rulings.

It is possible that three separate drivers each caught speeding at the same speed on their first offence could be treated differently in court.