A drink-driver who crashed her car while more than three times the legal limit has been banned for seven years.

Julie Elizabeth Norman was also given a suspended sentence and an order to take an extended driving test at the end of her ban.

The 45-year-old’s Honda CR-V ended up on its side after hitting a parked car on the A2 Laxey Road.

After she pleaded guilty to the offence, magistrates sentenced her to 13 weeks’ custody, suspended for two years.

Norman, who lives at Auburn Road in Onchan, was also made the subject of a 18 month suspended sentence supervision order and must complete a drink-driving rehabilitation course after the ban.

We previously reported that a witness was driving behind Norman on August 5, at 4.30pm, heading from Douglas towards Laxey.

The witness said that Norman’s car was swerving in the road, clipped a kerb, crossed the centre line, and came into contact with hedgerow on several occasions.

As they followed Norman, they then saw her car hit a parked Alfa Romeo, which was shunted forward into a Hyundai.

Norman’s vehicle rolled onto its side, coming to rest in the Douglas bound carriageway.

An off-duty fireman initially responded to the incident, before emergency services arrived.

Norman was described as smelling of alcohol and having glazed eyes.

She refused to take a roadside breathalyser test and was initially taken to the hospital for treatment.

After being discharged and taken to police headquarters, at 8.50pm, she took a breathalyser test and blew a reading of 105.

The legal limit is 35.

However, a doctor’s back calculation concluded that, at the time of driving, the reading would not have been less than 138.

The court heard that Norman has a previous conviction for being drunk in charge of a vehicle, for which she received a six month disqualification.

Defence advocate Jim Travers handed in letters of reference for his client and referred to the doctor’s report on the back calculation.

Mr Travers said that the report stated that if the defendant had consumed alcohol recently the reading would have been between 105 and 138, so it was not necessarily 138.

However, the advocate said that he did not feel that this would make a material difference to the sentence.

Mr Travers said that his client’s chief concern was her liberty and referred to a probation report which he said detailed Norman’s reason for not taking the roadside test, also pointing out that she had not been charged with a failure to provide offence.

The advocate went on to ask for credit to be given for his client’s guilty plea and her co-operation at police headquarters.

He said that Norman had also suffered a bereavement which she had not dealt with very well, that she was working with Motiv8, and that she had not consumed alcohol since her arrest.

Magistrates also ordered the defendant to pay £125 prosecution costs.