A Merseysider jailed for being aggressively drunk outside a Douglas seafront pub has lost his appeal against his sentence.

William Martin Vaughan, 38, was jailed for 10 weeks and 10 days after pleading guilty to being drunk and disorderly on licensed premises, and to criminal damage.

He was banned from the island for five years.

Vaughan was spotted by member of staff at the Quid’s Inn on August 4 this year, coming through the turnstile incredibly drunk.

He was asked to leave and did so but then returned to the entrance after standing outside having a cigarette.

When he was told he would not be allowed back into the licensed premises he became aggressive to the female member of staff.

He was blocking the entrance and blocking other people from coming in or going out of the pub.

Police were called and in the meantime, other members of the public drew closer to the member of staff to protect her in case Vaughan became physically aggressive.

When police arrived, the appellant was very drunk and barely able to walk. He resisted arrest and making threats to officers.

He was placed in an ambulance due to a cut to the head. Again, he continued to be thoroughly abusive, both to the officers and the paramedics. He refused treatment.

When at the custody suite, Vaughan continued to shout abuse and used the blood from the wound on his forehead to deface and damage the cell wall.

When he eventually calmed down enough, he was taken to the accident and emergency suite at Noble’s Hospital for his head wound to be stitched.

At an appeal hearing, Vaughan’s lawyer argued that the five-year exclusion order was ’inappropriate and disproportionate’ - and was akin to the ancient penalty of banishment.

But the appeal court dismissed that application.

Deemsters Corlett and Gough noted the appellant’s lengthy previous convictions, the fact he had no ties to the island whatsoever and had come to the island for a short - and as it turned out disastrous - break.

They also rejected his appeal against the jail term, concluding they did not consider the sentences imposed to have been manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The appeal judges said they were satisfied the Deputy High Bailiff did not mistakenly sentence on the basis that the appellant had used physical violence. No evidence was presented that he had.

She was also well aware there was no charge of resisting arrest, and she could not be criticised for taking into account his behaviour outside the pub.