A drink-driver, jailed after she struck down and killed a family man as he strolled by the road with his son, has failed to convince top judges her trial was unfair.

Samantha Ann Roberts, 25, was jailed for seven years at Chester Crown Court in December 2014 after she was convicted of causing death by careless driving.

Her victim was 51-year-old David Dutton, who was walking along Eaton Lane in Eaton, near Tarporley, when he was hit by her Nissan Micra in May 2013.

Also struck was Mr Dutton’s 25-year-old son, Gavin Dutton. Both victims were rushed to hospital for treatment but David Dutton died of his injuries.

RELATED ARTICLE: Woman jailed for causing death of Eaton man by careless driving

Roberts, of Pentre Halkyn, Holywell, was nearly three times over the legal alcohol limit at the time.

After Roberts was jailed Mr Dutton’s family issued a statement describing the ‘torture’ of his loss.

Flowers and tributes to Eaton man David Dutton, 51, who died on Saturday May 18, 2013, when he and his son Gavin were struck by a green Nissan Micra, driven by Samantha Roberts

“Our whole world changed forever the moment that a driver decided to drive a car while knowingly over the drink drive limit - a decision that has devastated our life.”

Roberts, who was also banned from the road for eight years, today (Thursday, February 4) challenged the jury’s verdict at London’s Appeal Court.

RELATED ARTICLE: Family pay tribute to Eaton man killed in road traffic collision

Her barrister, Richard Vardon, claimed the trial judge failed to stick to guidelines when summing up the case to jurors.

He also argued that the judge was too quick to tell jurors that they could convict Roberts by a majority.

But Mrs Justice Thirlwall, sitting with Lord Justice Elias and Judge James Burbidge QC, ruled there was nothing ‘unsafe’ about her conviction.

Also upholding Roberts’ sentence, the judge said: “This was a careful sentencing exercise. We can find no arguable error here.

“Given the effects on all concerned in this case we must conclude that the appeal against sentence is unarguable.”