Judges order drink-drive ban

A decision not to ban a soldier caught drink-driving has been criticised in the High Court.

Crewe magistrates fined Liam Conroy, from Daven Road, Congleton, Cheshire, after taking into account he did not intend to travel very far before he was stopped by police.

They had heard how the 23-year-old, who was twice over the legal alcohol limit, drove through Congleton town centre last November after his girlfriend was taken ill.

Two senior judges on Monday described Conroy's punishment as "irrational" and sent the case back to Crewe magistrates with a direction to ban the soldier from driving.

Short distance

Lord Rose, sitting with Mr Justice Douglas Brown, ruled that no reasonable bench of magistrates could have come to the conclusion that "special reasons" existed for not imposing a ban because of the short distance Conroy was driving.

Conroy was fined £300 for drink-driving by magistrates last February, who also ordered that his licence should be endorsed with eight penalty points.

But they decided not to disqualify him after taking into account he had only driven for about half-a-mile before being stopped and accepting that he only intended to drive another 200 yards to his girlfriend's home.

The magistrates said there was "only a limited possibility of danger" of Conroy's Rover 214 car "coming into contact with other road users".

Taxi option

Austin Newman, appearing for Conroy, argued the magistrates had acted within their powers and their conclusion was neither perverse not irrational.

Lord Justice Rose, who allowed a Director of Public Prosecutions appeal, said he disagreed.

He told the court: "No reasonable bench of magistrates, having directed themselves on the law, could properly have come to the conclusion that special reasons existed."

The judge said that Conroy did not need to drive, but could have called a taxi to take his girlfriend home - as a police officer did after his car was stopped.

The magistrates were directed to impose an appropriate period of disqualification, which the judges said should be for up to 18 months.