A LEARNER driver who crashed into a parked car on the outskirts of Carlisle was uninsured and being supervised by an over-the-limit passenger.

Kinga Kuliga, 28, initially denied being the driver of the Audi A3 which police caught up with her on Durdar Road on August 11 after the incident but then she changed her mind and admitted being the driver.

She admitted uninsured driving and driving otherwise than in accordance with her provisional driving licence.

In the car with her was Bartlomiej Daniel Stec, 32, who admitted being “in charge” of a motor vehicle while over the drink drive limit. At Carlisle’s Rickergate court, prosecutor Diane Jackson outlined the facts.

After she admitted being the driver, Kuliga told police officers that she was driving on the wrong side of the road because she normally drove in Poland, said Mrs Jackson.

“Enquiries showed she was a provisional licence holder only,” said Mrs Jackson. Yet there were no L-plates on the Audi.

Mrs Jackson said that a breath test on Stec confirmed that at the time he had 47mcg of alcohol in every 100mls of breath. The legal limit for driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle is 35mcg.

The defendants, both of Blackwell Road, Carlisle, said they work at a factory some 15 miles away from Carlisle and thus a driving ban would create difficulties getting to their jobs, which involve 12-hour shifts during both day and night.

Stec said losing his licence would lead to the loss of his job.

Kuliga told the court: “I feel really sorry about it and in the future I will not be doing anything like this ever again. It’s caused me a lot of stress. I don’t want to find myself in this situation again. I had my driving test yesterday.

“I didn’t pass. I just want to say that I’m sorry.”

Magistrates gave Kuliga a six-month ban, and a £415 fine, as well as costs of £85 and a £166 victim surcharge. Stec was fined £276, with £85 costs and a £110 surcharge. Magistrates imposed 10 points on his licence.

There was no driving ban imposed on him because magistrates said they accepted that this would have led to the loss of his job and rental accommodation for both him and his colleague, his co-defendant.