Rebel UBP MP Dr. David Dyer says Labour and Home Minister Quinton Edness should, at the least, publicly apologise for his recent criticism of Senior Magistrate Will Francis.

Mr. Edness earlier this week slammed as "absolutely ridiculous'' Mr. Francis allowing Jessie DeCouto, 19, to keep his licence despite pleading guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol.

But last night Mr. Edness fired back at Dr. Dyer, saying: "It's just like him to shoot the messenger.'' He added: "I have no objection about apologising to the court and I'll do so if it is thought I have offended the court.

"I've actually criticised various sentences which have been handed down, and I believe I have a right to express my disagreement with those sentences.'' Mr. Edness said drink-driving should be considered a very serious offence.

"Nobody wants to wake up one morning and find a drunk driver has killed their child.'' The sentence provoked a loud public outcry and has prompted Government to announce plans to review existing legislation relating to drinking and driving.

On Thursday evening Mr. Edness backtracked from his earlier, angrier stance, telling The Royal Gazette : "It is not my intent to criticise the courts.

"I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the court,'' he said.

But, said Dr. Dyer, Mr. Edness should have never made the remarks in the first place.

"You cannot criticise a judge for carrying out a legislative directive, especially when they've been given discretion to do so,'' he said.

"In any democratic society the legislature, especially a Cabinet Minister, should not criticise the judiciary.

"Most fair-thinking people who know the difference between the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive would feel the same way,'' he added.

He stopped short of calling for the minister's resignation saying only: "That would be a pipe dream; that doesn't happen around here.'' Dr. Dyer argued the concept of judicial discretion originated in Judge Stephen Tumim report's on Bermuda's criminal justice system, a document supported by Mr. Edness when he was the Minister of Health.

And while the Tumim report does not specifically mention drunk drivers, it extends the concept of discretion to youthful offenders of less serious traffic violations.

The concept of discretion, he maintains, was taken beyond the Tumim report, debated in the legislature and was championed by Mr. Edness himself.

"The Tumim report marked a policy change and it was given to the judiciary as a directive. Not as a law per se, but as a directive given to the courts, and not all that long ago,'' he said. Mr. Edness, however, said Dr. Dyer had misinterpreted the Tumim report, and he advised him to do his homework.

"Dr. Dyer has got it wrong, if he would read the Tumim report he would find it recommended more lenient sentences for certain crimes like speeding.

"There used to be a mandatory sentence, and people were being put in jail for speeding, as well as non-payment of fines.

"Tumim did not recommend that the sentences should be more lenient for drunk driving, physical and sexual assault, or assault in domestic settings. Nor for drug importation or pushing.

"The whole idea was for certain types of lesser offences to be looked at -- that's what Tumim was recommending.''