Need Help With A Criminal Matter?
Call 1300 168 676 or email us now

ACT drug-driving

Author icon

Written by

Tag icon

Published under Case Studies, News

Clock icon

April 20, 2015

Comments icon

No comments

Jeff, James and Jill are three Canberra motorists.

Jeff shares a joint of marijuana with a mate on a Saturday night at home and doesn’t drive until going to work on the following Monday.

James has a dozen schooners on the Saturday night and also doesn’t drive until heading to work on the Monday.

Jill has two bottles of wine on the Saturday night, hops straight in her car and gets picked up by police. She returns a Level 4 blood-alcohol reading and is facing an automatic three years’ disqualification from driving.

Jeff and James both get directed into a random-testing queue by police on their way to work on the Monday.

James is waved through.

But Jeff is arrested – and faces being disqualified for as long as Jill.

Like James, he is unaffected at the time of driving, but, under ACT law, that doesn’t matter.

And the latest ACT Criminal Justice Statistical Profile shows that the number of people returning positive roadside random drug tests has skyrocketed 238 per cent on a year ago.

That is more and more people facing harsh penalties when many of them may well not be drug-affected at the time of driving. (The stated purpose of the law is to prevent drug-affected drivers getting behind the wheel).

The reason for the discrepancy between drink-drivers and drug-drivers is that alcohol and its effects can be accurately measured, allowing Parliament to set particular penalties for drivers with particular concentrations of alcohol in their blood. Illicit drugs cannot be so accurately measured and the legislation requires only that a proscribed drug be found in a driver’s system for a prosecution to succeed. While alcohol leaves the body at a steady rate, other drugs, particularly cannabis, can remain in your system for weeks, and even months. This is a strict-liability offence: the police have only to prove that the drug was in your system and that you were behind the wheel.

While ACT legislation makes no distinction between Jeff and Jill, most magistrates are alive to the different scenarios that can lead people before the courts on a drug-driving charge, and can tailor their sentences to the individual circumstances.

The legislative situation is different across the border in NSW.

Rather than the ACT’s operative drink-drive and drug-drive laws, which directly follow each other in the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act, NSW has another charge that comes in between its main drink-driving and drug-driving sections.

This is Section 111 of the Road Transport Act 2013, prosecuting drivers for the presence of certain drugs (other than alcohol) in oral fluid, blood or urine.

It carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $1100 and a minimum disqualification of only three months (automatic disqualification six months).

About the Author

Andrew represents clients in the ACT Supreme and Magistrates Courts as well as the NSW Local and District Courts of the Canberra region. He appears also before the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal in licensing, mental-health and other matters. His breadth of experience allows him to tailor his advice and submissions to ensure the best possible results for his clients. View Andrew's profile

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bottom border