BARRY Mitchell has a right to feel aggrieved. For any law to work it must be fair, consistent and carry a penalty commensurate with the offence.

Mr Mitchell fell foul of a law which fails on all three counts.

He was fined and banned from driving after being caught riding a motor scooter while over the alcohol limit.

But is it fair to treat a machine with an engine like that of a hedge trimmer the same as cars with top speeds of 100mph-plus? Clearly not.

The law fairs no better on the question of consistency. As long ago as September 1996, a London fashion designer was banned from driving after riding his scooter at walking pace while over the alcohol limit.

Then, early in 2000, a Harrogate businessman was acquitted of riding a similar machine without insurance when magistrates ruled it was not a motor vehicle.

Later that year the High Court decreed otherwise. Although the Go-ped lacks a clutch, lights, suspension, seats, a horn, speedometer or mirrors it should be considered a motor vehicle, the Lord Justices decided.

Even then, the inconsistencies didn't stop. A Cheshire man, caught riding a 28cc scooter while drunk, escaped a ban in 2001 because he had no idea the machine was classed like a car.

That reasonable argument was also used by Mr Mitchell. But he lost his licence - a punishment far in excess of the offence.

When he bought the scooter Mr Mitchell was not told of its legal status. No wonder - retailers have a vested interest in keeping this quiet otherwise it would cost them sales.

It seems people will only learn about this heavy-handed law by reading of the misfortune of people such as Barry Mitchell.

Updated: 10:53 Monday, June 28, 2004