The offence at s. 5A RTA 1988 is driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified controlled drug in the blood or urine in excess of the specified limit for that drug. It is a summary only offence that came into force on 2 March 2015. It brings enforcement of drug driving into line with that of drink driving, by introducing a strict liability offence to avoid the need to prove impairment. It seeks to enable more effective law enforcement to take place, with the aim of improving road safety by deterring potential drug drivers and bringing more drug drivers to justice.

Section 6 RTA 1988 provides a power for a constable to administer preliminary tests. Section 6A RTA 1988 provides for a preliminary breath test, 6B RTA 1988 for a preliminary impairment test and 6C RTA 1988 for a preliminary drug test. Sections 6D RTA 1988 and 6E RTA 1988 make provision about powers of arrest and powers of entry respectively in connection with the administration of preliminary tests. is or has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion s.6(4) RTA 1988; MGDD Form A provides guidance on taking a sample in cases involving a person aged 17 years or under. The young person may consent to the provision of breath, blood or urine specimens without the need for parental or other approval. The officer must be satisfied, as they would with any consent, that the young person has the necessary mental capacity. The prosecution need not be delayed until an appropriate adult attends since the procedure does not constitute an interview for the purposes of PACE. DrugWipe is the global leader for police roadside driver drug screening and is also used extensively for safety critical employee drug testing. D.tec are delighted to supply all 43 police forces in England, Wales and most recently Scotland with these high-quality DrugWipe products, as well as hundreds of corporate clients, smaller businesses and other organisations, including schools. It's interesting to know that some of the police forces incorrectly call DrugWipe, DrugSwipe. HAS BEEN driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while having a drug in their body or while unfit to drive because of a drug, and still has a drug in their body or is still under the influence of a drug; ORif it is, whether the proportion of it in the person's blood or urine is likely to exceed the specified limit for that drug. There is a very clear public interest in prosecuting drink or drug driving offences, due to the danger posed to others by such behaviour. Where an individual has driven a motor vehicle and the evidence is sufficient to support a charge under s.4, 5, 5A or 7(6) RTA 1988, a prosecution will almost invariably follow. If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and a police constable reasonably believes that a person: is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug - s.6(2) RTA 1988; an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and a constable reasonably believes that the person was driving, attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident - s.6(5) RTA 1988.

The detection windows for each drug ie the approximate detectable time each drug remains detectable in the urine after last use If there is clear evidence of impairment over and above the evidence of the breath analysis, you should consider charging a s.4 offence in preference to that under s.5. The Form MG/DD contains assertions of fact; it is a document made out of court and is inadmissible under the hearsay rule. Section 9 Criminal Justice Act 1967 only permits that the evidence contained in a witness statement is admissible were the maker of it in the witness box. If the officer who filled out the Form were in the witness box, he could not produce the Form in chief as an exhibit, though he could refer to it as a memory-refreshing document. The production in evidence of that Form attached to a short s.9 CJA statement will not render the content admissible. The window of detection for drugs and their metabolites on a fingerprint drug test, is shorter than on a urine or saliva drug test for most drugs, at up to 16 hours. Hair drug test detection times Evidential Breath Testing Instruments are computers. Following the repeal of section 69 PACE 1984, the law has reverted to the common law position which presumes that any mechanical or other device is working properly unless the contrary is proved (affirmed in Clarke v CPS [2013] EWHC 366 (Admin)). Consequently the record produced by a computer is admissible as real evidence as it is presumed that the record is accurate. That presumption can be rebutted if evidence to the contrary is adduced. In that event, it will be for the party seeking to produce the computer record in evidence to satisfy the court that the computer was working properly at the material time. Public Interest ConsiderationsSection 5A (2) RTA 1988 states that the specimen will be blood or urine. However, as there are no specified limits set for drugs in urine, the specimen has to be blood, and this is reflected in police procedure. If the suspect refuses, without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of blood, the appropriate charge will be one of "Failure to provide" contrary to s.7(6) RTA 1988. A s.5A RTA 1988 offence cannot be prosecuted if the suspect has a genuine medical reason for failing to provide a specimen of blood. This would not preclude the continuation of evidence gathering for a s.4 RTA 1988, as the requirement for the presence of a drug does not need to exceed a limit and the drug can be discovered in specimens of urine. This is why police will investigate both offences where evidence of impairment is available. Specified Limits If they think you’re unfit to drive because of taking drugs, you’ll be arrested and will have to take a blood or urine test at a police station. a drug test whereby a specimen of sweat or saliva is used, by means of a device approved by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of obtaining an indication whether a person has a drug in his body (s. 6C RTA 1988). The police will carry out a roadside test, much in the same way as the screening breath test for alcohol. Current testing devices used under s. 6C RTA 1988 only test for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (the active ingredient of cannabis) and cocaine. If the result is positive, the suspect can be arrested and taken to a police station, where an evidential specimen of blood will be required.

The medicinal drugs which will have limits based on scientific evidence are clonazepam; diazepam; flunitrazepam; lorazepam; methadone; morphine; oxazepam; and temazepam. Where a requirement to provide blood or urine applies the requirement may then be made notwithstanding that the person required to provide the specimen has already provided or been required to provide two specimens of breath. Doctor's advice to Constable re influence of drugs under s.7(3)(c) RTA 1988where a considerable lapse of time occurred between the incident of driving and the driver's arrest because of the driver's own culpable actions by, for example, absconding from the scene of an accident; IS OR HAS BEEN driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion.