for "inexperienced magistrates''.

He gave the advice in handing down a judgment in the case of an appeal by Bermuda College student Michael Hassell against a Magistrates' Court conviction last year for driving dangerously.

Sir James quashed both the 19-year-old's conviction and 12-month disqualification from driving.

He noted the acting magistrate who tried the case, the Wor. Wilhelm Bourne, had made no findings of fact in his judgment.

Sir James said he had simply stated he preferred the evidence of the prosecution and rejected the evidence of the defendant and his witness.

Sir James added: "Having rejected the evidence of the defence, (Mr. Bourne) had a duty to say what he found to be the facts of the case.

"Only in this way could it be seen by the court that he had properly applied the burden of proof.

"I should add for the guidance of inexperienced magistrates that the provision at Section 21 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1930 is an easily understood provision and has to be followed.'' The section states a magistrate's judgment must be in writing and contain points for determination, the decision and reasons for it, he said.

Sir James found that since the magistrate had not found any facts on the evidence, "this court could draw its own conclusions''.

The Chief Justice's conclusion was that Hassell was not driving dangerously, but rather "driving without reasonable consideration for other road users in overtaking other vehicles on the road and placing them at an inconvenience by having to take evasive action''.

A sufficient penalty for such an offence was a $150 fine, he said, after quashing the 12-months-off-the-road sentence Hassell had previously been given.