A landmark ruling in the case of a driver fined multiple times after being caught by the new electronic vehicle registration (EVR)system may mean the law has to be re-written.

Justice Ian Kawaley said yesterday that Richard Cox, who racked up $19,250 for driving through EVR detectors eleven times, was punished excessively and should only have to pay $4,875. The appeal was the first since the new technology was rolled out on July 1 to snare unlicensed and uninsured motorists.

It could open the floodgates for other drivers who have received similar or larger fines to mount their own legal challenges, citing the precedent set.

Cox, 50, from Devonshire, said he drove his Opel Astra station wagon through the cameras repeatedly as he was unaware that his vehicle was unlicensed and uninsured.

He told The Royal Gazette after the ruling:"I'm very happy and I guess that first of all I would like to congratulate Government for putting this system in place.

"I think it's a great system. I was driving my car unknowingly through the camera. It was my ignorance that got me in trouble. It was an innocent mistake and I've never had a driving conviction in my life."

Government announced last month that EVR had yielded some $267,000 in fines by the time an August report was compiled. Several other drivers have been landed with large fines. Just the day before the ruling, Carlos Simas was handed the biggest to date – $63,000 for driving his unlicensed and uninsured car through the EVR cameras 36 times.

According to Cox's lawyer Alan Dunch, yesterday's ruling is significant for other motorists handed multiple penalties, although they will still have to launch their own appeals."

Moving forward, the judge has established the principles which should be followed by the magistrates and one would hope that the days of large cumulative fines has ended,"he said after the hearing.

"I think it will be necessary to redraft the law. I hope the legislature will do this in a timely fashion. Cox pleaded guilty to 11 counts of unlicensed driving and 11 of uninsured driving between July 9 and July 29 when he appeared at Magistrates' Court on September 11.

Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner handed him $750 for each count of unlicensed driving plus three demerit points and six months' disqualification.

He imposed fines of $1,000 for each of the uninsured driving charges.

It emerged during the appeal that Cox's license and insurance expired on November 17, 2007. He had, however, affixed the electronic vehicle registration sticker to his vehicle in line with the new rules.

He insured his vehicle straight after tickets were given to him at TCDon August 5 and his car was licensed 15 days later.

Mr. Dunch argued two points – that the offences were "continuous" offences so Cox could only properly have pleaded guilty to one offence.

The judge rejected that argument, and said they were separate offences in law.

He also rejected the idea that Cox would not have committed so many offences if he had been notified more promptly that his illicit driving had been detected. However, he accepted Mr. Dunch's point that the cumulative total of the fines was "manifestly excessive".

Justice Kawaley noted at one point in his judgment:"In terms of an instinctual response to the totality of the fines imposed, a total of $19,250 for traffic offences not involving damage to person or property, or driving under the influence of drink or drugs, undoubtedly causes the eyebrows to raise quizzically.

"In the present case, there is no suggestion that the appellant is unable to pay the fines, but the total amount which is payable represents almost the entire cost of a modest new car or less than modest second hand car."

The judge opted to let all the offences stand, but only impose a punishment of $750 for the first offence of driving an unlicensed vehicle, with nothing on the other ten. The maximum punishment for uninsured driving is $5,040, with the judge opting to impose $4,125 for the first offence, and nothing on the other ten. He also quashed the six-month driving ban, saying that the demerit point law had been interpreted wrongly.

Referring to the $63,000 fine meted out to Simas the day before, Mr. Dunch told the judge:"It's not for me to speak on behalf of the people of Bermuda but I am concerned, and my concern is sparked by what I've read in the newspaper and heard on the news today, that another motorist was fined $63,000 in circumstances which are akin to the ones which we've dealt with.

"It seems to me unfortunate that that happened because I have to believe the magistrates were aware of this appeal and I would have hoped that they had put things on hold as a result."

Mr. Dunch added that while he anticipated the prosecution would appeal the case, the Magistrates' Court ought to hold any future fines in abeyance until a final decision is made.

The judge said this was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he would pass Mr. Dunch's concerns on to the Chief Justice.

Senior Crown Counsel Carrington Mahoney indicated that while the DPPhas a duty to bring people before the courts as soon as possible, it could be the case that sentencing in other cases is postponed until the matter is finally decided.

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Michael McColm said last night that it was too early to say whether an appeal will be mounted or other sentences will be delayed as the judgment was still being considered. There was no order as to costs, so each side must bear its own.