There are two offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) that relate to drug driving:
It is an offence for a person to drive, or attempt to put a motor vehicle in motion, whilst a prescribed drug is present in his or her oral fluid or blood.
The following are a prescribed drug for the purposes of this offence:
Drug saliva tests can only detect the presence of THC, methylamphetamine and MDMA. Where a roadside test is positive, police have the power to conduct either a further saliva test or a blood test. If the test is positive, you may face charges of driving with a prescribed drug in oral fluid or blood. Before charges can be laid the presence of drugs must be confirmed by laboratory testing. The saliva test is mandatory and there are penalties for drivers who refuse to cooperate.
If you are under the influence of a drug, other than a prescribed drug (either prescription or illicit), you may still be charged with the offence of ‘driving under the influence’.
Our criminal lawyers at Caldicott Lawyers are experts in all traffic matters and specifically in the area of drug driving.
The penalty imposed for drug driving varies depending on whether or not you have committed a drug driving offence before.
First offence: $900Â fine, minimum 3 month licence disqualification and 4 demerit points.
Second offence: $1,200 fine, minimum 6 month driver’s licence disqualification and 4 demerit points.
Third offence: $1,800 fine, minimum 12 month driver’s licence disqualification and 4 demerit points
In some drug driving cases, the wrong person is charged with an offence. There is a variety of ways in which this can occur. It may be that there was an administrative error on the prosecution’s behalf or perhaps, the offender was carrying your identification. Regardless, it is a complete defence to this charge if it can be shown that you were not driving the vehicle.
Given that a drug driving charge deals specifically with the presence of a prescribed drug in the oral fluid or blood, evidence to show that the results yielded by the oral fluid analysis or blood analysis were inaccurate will serve as a defence.
It is a complete defence under section 47BA(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) if it can be shown that you did not knowingly consume the drug.
This legislation is designed to punish and prevent driving while under the influence of a prescribed drug. Thus, if you have chosen to consume the drug prior to an oral fluid or blood analysis, but after having driven your vehicle, then you are not guilty of a drug driving offence.
The Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Regulations 2014 outline a number of procedural conditions in relation to breath and blood analysis with which police must comply. In the event that they fail to comply with any of these requirements (e.g. refusing your request for a blood test), you may have a defence to this charge.
If you decide to plead guilty to an offence of drug driving we can assist you to get the best result possible. Our team of specialist criminal lawyers have extensive criminal law experience and know the best way to present your drug driving case before each of the Magistrates in the state. The results they obtain speak for themselves.
Before proceeding to plead guilty, the first thing we at Caldicott Lawyers do is make sure there is no possible defence to drug driving available to you. We then proceed to make certain, as best we can, that you get the absolute minimum penalty.
Deciding whether or not to plead guilty to drug driving has important implications and should be made after proper discussions with an expert criminal lawyer with experience in drink driving.
Call 08 8120 3783 to make an appointment with one of the knowledgeable lawyers at Caldicott Lawyers for assistance with your drug driving matter.
Trifling application or any other proper cause: made immediately after conviction may have the effect of reducing the amount of demerit points. The same magistrate who convicted the defendant is required to hear the evidence and decide if the offence is trifling or whether any other proper cause for reduction exists Zanker v Hyndman.
Proper cause must relate to the offence itself. The fact that they may suffer hardship from recording demerit points does not amount to proper cause Hepworth v Rowbottom.
It may be possible to reduce the penalty imposed, particularly the driver’s licence disqualification period, if we can prove that the offence was trifling.
This is a summary offence and will be dealt with in the Magistrates Court of South Australia.
Come and see the professional team at Caldicott Lawyers for assistance in your drug driving matter.
We have defended thousands of criminal cases over many decades and constantly achieve outstanding results for our clients. Please view our results by clicking the cases below:
Call us on (08) 8110 7900 to make an appointment with one of the knowledgeable lawyers for assistance with your matter.
Fill in your details below to make an appointment with one of expert defence lawyers for assistance with your matter.
Our client was charged with two counts of trafficking in controlled drug.
Our client pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three and a half years, with an 18 month non-parole period, suspended upon him entering into an 18 month good behaviour bond, supervised by the Department of Corrections for 12 months. An excellent result for the client.
Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug.
Our client was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, namely 700 tablets of ecstasy.
A search warrant was executed on his property with the drugs being found, some tick lists and an amount of $10,000.00 cash.
Shortly after arrest, we secured our client counselling in a drug rehabilitation facility. Further, reference material was obtained from family and friends as well as urine analysis to demonstrate the rehabilitative process that the client had undertaken.
Ultimately, he received a term of imprisonment of two years, one day and six months suspended upon him entering into a good behaviour bond.
The client was charged with trafficking ecstasy, possession of firearms, fail to store ammunition and possessing an unregistered firearm.
He received a total of three years and five months, with a two year non-parole period, suspended upon him entering into a $1,000.00 good behaviour bond, and to be under supervision for 12 months.
