A farmer's son who drove a tractor the wrong way down a road at top speed has had his driving ban cut.

John Lamont drove a the agricultural vehicle down a one-way road and was spotted by police officers as the tractor negotiated a blind bend.

The sheriff at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court was told by the Crown that any vehicle travelling in the opposite direction would have had no chance to see the tractor coming or avoid a collision.

Police alerted Lamont to their presence after spotting him but he continued at 30mph, which was said to be its top speed.

The carriageway was described as being "barely wide enough for the tractor" and it repeatedly mounted the verge at times "bouncing back" on to the road.

The single-track road had a number of blind bends and was deemed an unsuitable route for a tractor.

Lamont was handed a two-year driving ban by a sheriff and a £350 fine after he pleaded guilty to three charges under the Road Traffic Act

In sentencing Lamont, the sheriff took the view there was "significant potential for harm" to other road users and commented upon how fortunate it was that the appellant did not encounter any other vehicles.

She also took into account he was not an experienced driver and he had driven "at speed, given the capacity of the tractor".

The sheriff concluded the gravity of the offence merited a period of disqualification of 24 months.

Nothing had been said in mitigation that made her believe a more lenient sentence would have been suitable but Lamont's lawyer did not mention the impact the driving disqualification would have on his apprenticeship.

He appealed the sentence and it was ruled the ban was "excessive" after appeal court sheriffs were told Lamont's apprenticeship would be "significantly affected by the loss of his driving licence".

A letter to the court from his father setting out the way in which the running of the family farm had been further affected by the incapacity his grandfather and uncle was also taken into account.

A judgment from the Sheriff Appeal Court on Wednesday ruled: "It was plain to us that had the mitigatory material regarding the appellant's apprenticeship and his integral role in keeping the family farm business going by working at nights and at weekends been known to the sheriff, she most likely would have reflected those factors when it came to the period of disqualification imposed.

"Moreover, in the whole circumstances of the case, we consider that the decision to impose a disqualification period of two years can justifiably be characterised as excessive.

"Accordingly, we have determined that the disqualification imposed by the sheriff should be quashed and that, instead, the appellant should be subject to disqualification for the minimum period of 12 months."