Expert Witness Journal Issue 65 February 2026 - Flipbook - Page 56
Spike in Reo昀昀ending Rates
for Drug Driving
by Jeremy Sirrell, Director at Palmers Solicitors
di昀昀erent approaches to drug driving and drink
driving that have been adopted by the law.
Figures released recently by the Ministry of Justice
reveal a signi昀椀cant rise in the rate of reo昀昀ending
for drug driving o昀昀ences. In fact, almost 50 per
cent of those who commit o昀昀ences of drug driving
have previously committed a similar o昀昀ence. The
data also revealed that over the past four years,
drug drive reo昀昀ending rates have increased by more
than 134 per cent. Whilst these 昀椀gures will likely be
greeted by the predictable chorus of shock horror
in some quarters, it is worth pausing for a moment
to re昀氀ect just why there might be such high rates of
reo昀昀ending amongst drug driving o昀昀enders.
In relation to drink driving, the approach is very
simple – the limit has been set at the level at
which there is likely to be at least some (albeit not
necessarily very much) adverse e昀昀ect on reaction
time and judgement so that those who drive above
that limit are driving impaired and should be subject
to prosecution. The position in relation to drugs,
however, appears to be quite di昀昀erent in two ways.
Firstly, the levels for drugs found in the system
have been set extremely low, whereas the limit
for alcohol is set at the level where there is some
reduction in reaction time and judgement. The
limit for drugs appears to be set at a level where
one may be registering a drug in the system that is
above the legal limit whilst not showing any signs of
impairment. This is for two reasons:
One of the reasons suggested is the delays of up to
six months in processing blood tests, which means
people who have been arrested for a drug driving
o昀昀ence on one occasion may be free to commit a
second o昀昀ence before they have been prosecuted
for the 昀椀rst. There is no doubt that there will be a
small number of people who fall into this category.
However, in my experience, this is a very small
number indeed and cannot begin to account for the
increase in reo昀昀ending rates.
A more credible reason is likely to be that, unlike
o昀昀ences of driving with excess alcohol, there is not
yet a rehabilitation scheme for those convicted of
o昀昀ences of drug driving. When o昀昀ences of drug
driving 昀椀rst started to be prosecuted, now more
than ten years ago, it was very much new and there
had been no opportunity to set up courses similar to
those for drink driving.
The limit for drugs has been set very low
(one can only assume that this is a clear and
deliberate decision).
•
That drugs remain in the system and are
detectable in the system long after their
intoxicating e昀昀ects have passed.
To be clear then, with alcohol, the presence of
alcohol indicates (depending on the level) a degree
of intoxication at the time that the alcohol is
detected. However, drugs remain in the system,
detectable after their intoxicating e昀昀ects appear to
have passed, and this e昀昀ect is exacerbated by the
fact that not only are the drugs themselves unlawful
(above the limit) but so are their breakdown
products. It is an o昀昀ence to drive with more than
the speci昀椀ed quantity of the breakdown product of
the drug in one’s blood, as well as the drug itself.
Breakdown products are, of course, the result of the
body breaking down and metabolising the drug.
However, more than ten years down the line, there
are still no rehabilitation courses with no clear
indication as to why. Evidence seems to suggest
the rehabilitation courses really do help to prevent
reo昀昀ending for drink driving cases and might
therefore be of real assistance for drug driving
matters.
However, there is yet a more likely reason for the
higher rates of reo昀昀ending, and that lies in the
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
•
Breakdown products themselves are not intoxicating
but, indeed, are the result of the intoxicating e昀昀ects
54
FEBRUARY 2026
