So in your opinion, the "reasonable excuse" answer does not apply here?
If you squint the trip to Durham might have a reasonable excuse. I don't think it is but I can see why some would.
It's the Barnard Castle trip which to me is where it all falls apart. Both quite possibly legal but certain within the spirit of the guidelines. I just don't see how there can be any legitimate argument that he drove for sixty miles with wife and son in the car to "test his eyesight" and "check his driving" when the same thing could have been achieved by following the same (or at least similar) test as on a driving test ("can read that number plate from 20m away please") followed by a short solo drive around the locality (i.e. staying within walking distance if he needs to stop and also avoiding any population) of where he was then living.
Meanwhile we know that it was nice day and it was his wife's birthday and Barnard Castle (even if they didn't go into town) is a rather nice part of the world and perfect for a trip out for a bit of fresh air. Again, perhaps a reasonable excuse but certainly not within the guidelines where we were all being told to exercise locally and were guidance was issued that if you do travel then the exercise must be longer than the drive to the location.
His story about why he went to Durham I don't personally believe but I can agree to disagree on that. But Barnard Castle? I'm sorry but his explanation is just poppycock.