Transport Minister Ewart Brown took a swipe at lenient Magistrates yesterday and gave clear hints that previous drink drive convictions will hang around people's necks for far longer in the future.

He was speaking after a woman got only a year's driving ban despite being found guilty last week of her fifth offence.

St. George's woman Sheryl Dianne Pankey, of Hillview Lane, got the standard 12-month ban from all vehicles as well as a $600 fine because her earlier four offences were back in the early 1990s.

Currently a three-year driving ban is compulsory for a second offence within a two-year limit.

Dr. Brown agreed that wiping the slate clean after two years was too lenient.

He said: "It requires review and should be changed. It's something we are looking at -- tougher penalties for drink drivers.'' But he refused to be drawn on what the two-year previous conviction limit would be extended to and said the matter would have to be hammered out with interested parties.

And he said many Magistrates were not using the full fining options available to them.

"There are options available for harsher penalties. In many cases Magistrates aren't choosing to implement them,'' said Dr. Brown.

"Sentencing is lenient. Bermudian society in general is extra tolerant of alcohol and all its attendant problems.'' Magistrates can impose a 12-month prison sentence and a fine of $1,000 for a first-time offence while a second offence can land a drink driver an 18-month jail sentence and a $2,000 fine.

Shadow Transport Minister Erwin Adderley said previous drink drive convictions should hang around for five to 10 years.

He said: "Drink driving is a serious offence. I think we should look at five to 10 years. I think the law needs to be changed because these offences occur with greater regularity.

"We need to look at a longer period of time particularly as there is a risk to people's lives.

"We need people to be more concerned about the consequences about driving while intoxicated. There needs to be some education so that doesn't happen.

A Police source agreed it should be more than two years before drink drive records were expunged.

"If you are convicted on March 3, 1997 and then you're convicted again on March 4, 1999 then you are in the clear. It's crazy. It should be ten years.

"You wouldn't find that in any other jurisdiction.

"You hear of cases in the US that it was someone's fourth or fifth offence and that's why the book was thrown at them.'' He also questioned why Magistrates were so reluctant to send people to prison for drink driving.

"It should be used more, otherwise it's not a deterrent.'' Road Safety Council Chairwoman Pandora Wright did not want to be drawn into the issue of previous convictions.

But she said: "We are looking at the problem of impaired driving offences, not just their consequences but also rehabilitation. It's a very concerning matter and high on our agenda.''