Really worried

[Michey19]

My son had a small crash, the police were called by a bystander as it’s a notoriously bad junction with lots of accidents. When the arrived they swabbed my son for drugs which returned positive, despite him not taking any substances prior to driving and for over 35 hours (he went out Friday night and crashed Sunday tea time) We are now awaiting blood tests to come back which I believe is a long wait. Does anyone have any advice or experience of being convicted for drug driving even though you were not impaired by the effects of drugs whilst driving. Thank you from a worried parent.

[wales01man]

If the blood test comes back over the limit highly likely conviction thinking your not impaired means nothing same as drink driving over the limit.

[HandyAndy]

There are two offences:

1. Driving or Attempting to Drive whilst unfit through drink or drugs.
2. Driving or Attempting to Drive with a specified drug above the specified limit.

For the first, the police must prove impairment but the level of the drug in the system is irrelevant.

For the second (which it looks like the police are considering) they must prove the level of the drug in the system is above the limit. It is not necessary to prove impairment, but if it is evident it can be introduced as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Both offences carry a mandatory minimum disqualification period of 12 months on conviction..

The police have six months (from the date of the offence) to begin a prosecution.

[Michey19]

Thank you , I have done my research and I am totally aware it’s not looking good for him. I know it’s his fault and am not naive to that, although I think he is. It will just be a waiting game now and if he gets banned it will be a very stark lesson learnt.

[Mr Worried]

The blood wasn't over any limit otherwise I'd have be charged with drug driviving.I have witnesses I was fine before.
These witnesses aren't friends I've also requested CCTV (freedom of information) of my driving before. Driving whilst unfit section 4 is the hardest to prove as the police have to prove it and they turned up hours after the accident.

[Mr Worried]

If i'd done anything different I would have got CCTV from freedom of information of me in shops etc acting normally. Just wait now and hope he's not over any prescribed limits. P.S. shops delete the CCTV after 28 days.
If he's over the limit he'll be done, not the end of the world. He could get a job on a cruise liner around the Mediterranean.
P.S it's an awful thing to go through, I'm 50 and your son will be less bothered than you.

[Mr Worried]

If he's telling the truth about 35 hours and has a small amount in his blood then I would have been over sat next to the man smoking a spliff at the bus stop.

[atticus]

Should you be posting on this thread and not the one you started previously @Mrworried?

[Mr Worried]

Atticus, I do apologise for posting on someone else's thread. The OP clearly stated "Mr Worried" maybe she thought my situation was incredibly similar to her relatives. I'm a doctor (non medical) yet you obviously think you're a very big fish in a very small pond. Try to help people not belittle people.

[islandgirl]

Michey19
here are the guidelines for the most likely offence: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...ecified-limit/

Probably a cat 3 if the info given is correct?

[PallasAthena]

The OP clearly stated "Mr Worried" maybe she thought my situation was incredibly similar to her relatives.

The OP did not state that. Your assertion is false.