Drug Driving Charges
Clear advice on penalties, defences and what to expect in the NSW Local Court.
NSW enforces two distinct drug driving offences under the Road Transport Act 2013. The first, and by far the most commonly charged, is driving with the presence of a prohibited drug in your system, typically detected through roadside mobile drug testing (MDT) using an oral fluid sample. This is a strict liability "presence" offence — it does not matter whether you were actually impaired at the time, only that a prescribed illicit drug, such as THC, MDMA or methamphetamine, was detected in your oral fluid, blood or urine.
The second, more serious offence is driving under the influence, which applies where a person’s ability to drive is actually impaired — whether by alcohol, an illicit drug, or even a legally prescribed medication — to the point where they are incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. This offence requires the prosecution to prove actual impairment, not merely presence, and carries a higher maximum penalty than the presence offence, reflecting the greater danger posed by an actually impaired driver.
Because the presence offence does not require proof of impairment, it also does not recognise an exception for lawfully prescribed medicinal cannabis — a person can still be charged even where their THC use is legally prescribed and they are not impaired, an issue that has generated significant public debate and calls for law reform. Unlike alcohol, THC in particular can remain detectable in oral fluid for a considerable period after any impairing effect has worn off, meaning the timing of use relative to detection is often central to how these matters are approached.
Penalties
What you could be facing
| Penalty | Maximum | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Presence of an illicit drug while driving — first offence (s111 Road Transport Act 2013) | Fine only, no imprisonment | A strict liability offence carrying an automatic licence disqualification period on conviction (commonly a period similar to low range PCA), with the Local Court retaining some discretion to reduce it. No interlock program applies to this offence. |
| Presence of an illicit drug while driving — second or subsequent offence | Higher fine, no imprisonment | The fine and automatic disqualification period both increase for repeat offending, though this remains a fine-only offence with no term of imprisonment available. |
| Driving under the influence of alcohol or any drug (s112 Road Transport Act 2013) | A substantial fine and/or a term of imprisonment | Requires proof of actual impairment rather than mere presence, and carries a materially higher maximum penalty, together with a longer automatic disqualification period than the presence offence. |
| Combined drug and alcohol presence, or repeat offending | Sentence increased within the applicable maximum | Where both alcohol and an illicit drug are detected, or the accused has a relevant driving history, courts treat the matter more seriously when determining the penalty and disqualification period. |
Possible Defences
Ways this charge can be challenged
Defect in the testing procedure or certificate of analysis
Roadside oral fluid testing and the subsequent laboratory analysis must follow specific legal and procedural requirements. Where the testing device was not properly calibrated, the sample was not correctly collected or handled, or there are gaps in the continuity of the sample from roadside to laboratory, the reliability of the reading can be successfully challenged.
Honest and reasonable mistake of fact
Although the presence offence is strict liability, a defence can still arise from an honest and reasonably held, but mistaken, belief about a fact that, if true, would mean no offence was committed — for example, being unknowingly given a substance without any reasonable means of detecting it.
Necessity or duress
Where a person drove only because they were forced to by an immediate and genuine threat to safety, or to respond to a real emergency, the defence of necessity or duress may be available, though courts apply this narrowly and require the danger to have been immediate with no safer alternative available.
Absence of actual impairment (for the under the influence charge only)
Because driving under the influence requires proof that the accused was actually incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, evidence of the accused’s driving, physical coordination, and speech at the time can be used to challenge whether this higher threshold — as opposed to mere presence — has actually been met.
What Happens Next
The Local Court process
- 01
Roadside mobile drug testing typically begins with an oral fluid screening test, and if positive, is followed by a confirmatory laboratory analysis before a charge is laid.
- 02
The matter is first listed for mention in the Local Court. This is where a plea of guilty or not guilty is entered, and early legal advice can materially affect how the matter proceeds from here.
- 03
If a not guilty plea is entered, the prosecution serves its brief of evidence, including the certificate of analysis and any continuity evidence, before the matter is listed for a defended hearing.
- 04
At a defended hearing, the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the defence can test the testing procedure and raise any available defence.
- 05
If a guilty plea is entered, or the charge is proven at hearing, the matter proceeds to sentencing, where the Magistrate considers the accused’s driving history, personal circumstances, and any evidence in support of a lesser penalty or a non-conviction outcome.
- 06
Once sentence is passed, any disqualification period begins immediately unless a stay is granted, and there is a right of appeal to the District Court against both conviction and severity of sentence within strict time limits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions
Not necessarily. The presence offence under section 111 only requires that a prohibited drug was detected in your system, regardless of whether you were impaired at the time. Actual impairment is only relevant to the more serious driving under the influence charge under section 112.
Potentially, yes. The presence offence does not currently provide a general exception for lawfully prescribed medicinal cannabis, meaning a person can still be charged even where their use is legal and they were not impaired at the time of driving, though this remains an area of ongoing law reform debate.
Unlike alcohol, THC can remain detectable in oral fluid for a period well beyond any actual impairing effect, particularly for regular users, meaning a positive test does not necessarily indicate recent use or impairment at the time of driving.
Yes, an automatic disqualification period applies on conviction for the presence offence, though the Local Court retains some discretion, and a non-conviction outcome under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act may be available in appropriate cases, which can avoid disqualification altogether.
No. The mandatory alcohol interlock program applies specifically to certain PCA (drink driving) offences and does not apply to the drug presence or driving under the influence offences under the Road Transport Act 2013.
The presence offence under section 111 only requires that a prohibited drug was detected in your system, while driving under the influence under section 112 requires the prosecution to prove you were actually impaired to the point of being incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, and carries a higher maximum penalty as a result.
Going to court?
Speak with our team today for a free first conference and clear, fixed-fee advice on your matter.
Call 0414 444 474