Driver whose blood contains evidence of use of controlled drug or prescription medicine

The Bill as introduced provides that it is an offence for a person, inter alia, to drive if that person's blood contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug or of any prescription medicine taken without a prescription or which had not been administered by a health practitioner.

The Select Committee has recommended that the offence relate to a driver whose blood contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug or of "any prescription medicine" (whether or not taken without a prescription or whether or not it had not been administered by a health practitioner) (Part 1, Clause 6, amending New Section 57A of the Act).

Comment

The Select Committee has recommended a new heading to Clause 6 of the Bill. The recommended heading is not clear. The term "by illegal drugs" has been dropped from the heading.

Causing injury or death while impaired by drugs or prescription medicine

The Bill as introduced creates an offence of causing injury or death by a driver whose blood contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug or of any prescription medicine taken without a prescription or without having been administered by a health practitioner.

The Select Committee has recommended that the offence relate to a driver whose blood contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug or of "any prescription medicine" (whether or not taken without a prescription or whether or not it had not been administered by a health practitioner) (Part 1, Clause 8, amend new subsection (1A)(c) of Section 62 of the Act).

Defences

The Select Committee has recommended that the defence provision relating to the above two offences be amended to provide that it is a defence if the Court is satisfied that the person has consumed the relevant controlled drug or prescription medicine:

• in accordance with " ... a current and valid prescription written for that person by a health practitioner ... and ... any instructions from a health practitioner or from the manufacturer of the drug or medicine"; or
• " ... because it was administered by a health practitioner provided that the person complied with the instructions (if any) that the health practitioner has given".
• Both of the offences referred to above include as an element (and as recommended by the Select Committee) that the driver " ...does not complete a compulsory impairment test in a manner satisfactory" to a trained enforcement officer.
• The Select Committee has recommended that it is a defence if such a failure or refusal to undergo a compulsory impairment test is because of:
• " ... a pre-existing medical condition or pre-existing disability that precludes undergoing the test";
• "an injury, sustained in a motor vehicle accident giving rise to an obligation to undergo the test, that precludes undergoing the test" (Part 1, Clause 9, amending Section 64 of the Act, substituting new subclause (1A) and inserting new subclause (1B); cf. Clauses 6 and 8 of the Bill).

Copyright: © NZ Parliamentary Library, 2009

Except for educational purposes permitted under the Copyright Act 1994, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval systems, other than by Members of Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the consent of the Parliamentary Librarian, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.This document may also be available through commercial online services and may be viewed and reproduced in accordance with the conditions applicable to those services.