A repentant truck driver whose licence was restored temporarily as he attempted to challenge the terms of his disqualification in court has been banned from the roads.

Magistrate Maria Sofianos acknowledged the clean record and good character of Vernon Eve, 56, but said there would be “public outrage” if he received a conditional discharge for the offence of driving while impaired.

An appeal, argued by lawyer Saul Dismont, was granted in January by the Supreme Court after Eve was disqualified from driving all vehicles and fined $500 in January 2021.

Eve, who had described himself as “a hard-working family man” who had been “out there on the front line doing my part for my country” during the Covid-19 lockdown, apologised before the court at his initial appearance and said that “my life was probably saved on the night in question and potentially someone else’s”.

He called the incident on November 20, 2020, “not my normal character”, adding that his helmet had been stolen and that he was “just trying to get home”.

Eve told Juan Wolffe, who was then the senior magistrate: “We are in some very hard times — if I’m unable to work for my job and drive, my family will be put into financial difficulty.”

Eve had been spotted on a motorcycle by police, driving west on Middle Road in Paget with no helmet on.

He was stopped at the entrance to Keith Hall Road in Warwick, and admitted to the offence.

Mr Wolffe heard Eve’s circumstances, which included mortgage payments, but told him: “Unfortunately, sir, my hands are tied in the sense that this is a mandatory sentence of 18 months’ disqualified driving.”

He then asked Eve if he had “an issue with drinking and driving”, which he denied.

After hearing more of Eve’s predicament, Mr Wolffe told him that he was limited by legislation.

He added: “ … if I were to give you your licence back, or allow you to continue driving, then the prosecution would appeal my decision, quite rightly, and they would be successful”.

However, Mr Wolffe reduced Eve’s fine, which ordinarily would have been $1,000, to $500.

Notice of appeal against conviction and the sentence was filed on January 25, 2021. Eve served a brief period of disqualification before the ban was stayed, pending the completion of his appeal.

Mr Dismont argued that Section 69 of the Criminal Code could have been applied in his client’s case.

It allows the granting of conditional or absolute discharges when the court “considers it to be in the best interests of the offender and not contrary to the public interest”.

He submitted that there had been an error in law when the senior magistrate stated that he did not have the power to apply Section 69.

In February, Mr Dismont, with Matthew Frick representing the Crown, appeared before Ms Sofianos.

Mr Frick argued that while a conditional discharge might be in the defendant’s best interests, it would “most definitely be contrary to the public interest”.

He submitted that “such offences were extremely prevalent in Bermuda and there were recent calls to increase the penalties”.

Mr Frick further submitted that if the courts did not support the Crown’s argument and ordered a conditional discharge, a condition could be imposed banning Eve from all vehicles with the exclusion of his work vehicle.

However, any financial penalty should increase, given that Eve would no longer face losing his job.

Mr Dismont referred to the senior magistrate’s remarks, highlighting Eve’s previous good character, and said that he admitted the offence as soon as he was stopped by police.

Ms Sofianos accepted that Eve had remained of good character and without previous offences in 2025, as he had in 2021.

She added: “I have considered that it is not necessary to enter a conviction against him in order to deter him from future offences or to rehabilitate him, and that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions on him.”

However, she said that when anyone headed on to the roads after consuming alcohol, “it could be said that they invite all and any repercussions that follow”.

She added: “It is apparent that Parliament sought to enact legislation which provided obligatory penalties that would deter members of our community from committing such offences.

“Members of the public have been harmed and maimed by persons who have made unwise decisions and committed these types of offences.

“There have been fatalities. Vehicles have been damaged; some have been completely written off.

“While I accept that this defendant did not cause injury or damage, that is fortunate — but he still took the risk when he made the decision to operate a vehicle.”

Ms Sofianos noted the many campaigns by the Government and charities to rein in the island’s problem with drink-driving.

She said the court could not support the defence’s submission that the public would “largely support” allowing a conditional discharge.

Ms Sofianos added: “Such a decision would be met with public outrage and would send the wrong message to the general community and to those who commit these types of offences.”

Eve’s disqualification came into immediate effect from yesterday, minus the 29 days from the commencement of his original driving ban and the restoration of his licence in February 2021.

However, Ms Sofianos left the $500 fine in place, noting it had been paid in full on the day of his first court appearance.

• 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