Drink driver fined after M6 crash that seriously injured woman

Inderjit Sagar was charged with drink driving by police following a three-vehicle collision on the motorway in July.

It came months after the 47-year-old registered chiropodist was struck off for failings which ‘damaged the reputation of the profession’.

He appeared to face the drink driving charge before Warrington Magistrates’ Court on Monday, August 15.

The court heard how Sagar got behind the wheel on July 27 after overconsuming alcohol.

A test by police revealed a reading of 55 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of his breath, with the national drink-drive limit being 35 micrograms.

As the driver of a white Mercedes, he was involved in a crash on the M6 southbound that afternoon with a red dropside lorry and a black Nissan Qashqai.

The incident occurred just before 2pm between junction 21 for Woolston and junction 20 for the M56 at Lymm Interchange.

The busy motorway closed in both directions, with an air ambulance landing at the scene to transport a casualty to hospital.

Sagar was sentenced at Warrington Magistrates' Court

This came after firefighters worked to extract casualties from vehicles, with the Nissan ending up on its roof and two people trapped inside.

As a result of the collision, a female passenger in the Nissan sustained ‘serious but non-life-threatening injuries’.

Long tailbacks formed heading for miles northbound and southbound, while the M56 and all routes through Warrington were heavily congested as traffic tried to divert.

Appearing in court, Sagar, of Union Street in Chorley, pleaded guilty to drink driving and was disqualified from driving for 14 months.

He was also ordered to pay a fine of £576, costs to the Crown Prosecution Service of £85 and a surcharge to fund victim services of £230.

This comes after the defendant, the owner of Chorley Chiropody Practice, was struck off as a chiropodist in January.

His case was heard by the Health and Care Professionals Tribunal Service’s conduct and competence committee, which ruled that there was no alternative to a striking off order.

A decision report states that his fitness to practise is impaired, as his failings involving a nail treatment ‘put patients at unwarranted risk of harm and damaged the reputation of the profession’.

The panel added that his ‘lack of insight’ meant that members were not assured that, if permitted to return to unrestricted practice, he ‘would not repeat his past failings’.