Draft Road Traffic Law (Drug Driving) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.32/2026): amendment
This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
DRAFT ROAD TRAFFIC LAW (DRUG DRIVING) (JERSEY) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 202- (P.32/2026):
AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe on 11th March 2026
by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel Earliest date for debate: 14th July 2026
STATES GREFFE
2026 P.32/2026 Amd.
DRAFT ROAD TRAFFIC LAW (DRUG DRIVING) (JERSEY) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 202- (P.32/2026): AMENDMENT
PAGE 11, REGULATION 7 –
In Regulation 7, in inserted Article 28B(5), for "The Minister for Justice and Home Affairs may by Order" substitute "The States may by Regulations".
ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE SCRUTINY PANEL
REPORT
The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel's ("the Panel") Amendment to the Draft Road Traffic Law (Drug Driving) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.32/2026) ("draft Regulations") will ensure that future changes to prescribed drug limits and specified drugs under the draft Regulations, must be approved by the States Assembly.
Background
In February 2026, the Panel received an initial briefing during which it questioned the evidence base relating to drugdriving in Jersey. Officers advised that incidents of drugdriving do occur and that the absence of prescribed limits within the Road Traffic Law currently makes such cases challenging to prosecute.
The Panel understands that introducing prescribed THC limits for both regular drivers' and Public Service Vehicle and Group 2 licence holders' is intended to enable more objective assessments of impairment, facilitate faster and more consistent arrests, reduce delays associated with blood testing, and improve the robustness of prosecutions.
Evidence
However, following this briefing and publication of the draft Regulations, the Panel received a substantial number of submissions from members of the public and stakeholders. Key themes emerging from this engagement included:
• the absence of a specific medical defence
• the focus on THC products over other prescribed drugs
• concerns regarding the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence underpinning the proposals
• the extent of engagement with medicinal cannabis users and stakeholders
On 23rd February 2026, the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel and the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel received a joint briefing on the draft Regulations. The Panel recognises that changes in this area are inherently complex and may have broad consequences for criminal justice, public health and road safety.
During its Quarterly Public Hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure on 5th March 2026, the Panel raised concerns identified through public and stakeholder submissions. The Panel heard that medicinal cannabis prescribers had been consulted during development of the proposals and had advised that, when taken as prescribed, medicinal cannabis would not cause a patient to exceed the proposed 5 µg/L THC limit.1
The Panel also sought clarity on whether future alterations to prescribed drug limits or the list of specified drugs would be returned to the States Assembly. The Minister explained that the draft Regulations provide the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs with a permissive power to amend these matters by Order. He also acknowledged that he had considered lodging an amendment to require such changes to be brought back to the Assembly, given the broad nature of the power and the sensitivity of the subject. 2
Given the significant public contention, the potential implications for public health and road safety, and the Minister's own acknowledgment that the Ordermaking power is broad, the Panel
1 2026-03-05-Transcript-Public-Quarterly-Hearing-Minister-for-Infrastructure_1.pdf 2 2026-03-05-Transcript-Public-Quarterly-Hearing-Minister-for-Infrastructure_1.pdf
considers that any future alterations to the list of specified drugs or the prescribed limits should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment
The effect of this Amendment is to remove the discretion of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs to amend Article 28B(5) of the draft Regulations by way of Order. Instead, the States Assembly will be given Regulation-making powers to modify the specified drugs, prescribed limits related to a specified drug and the persons to whom a prescribed limit applies, under Article 28B(5) of the draft Regulations.
The Panel notes that, although this amendment has been lodged to meet the parliamentary deadline, its scrutiny of the draft Regulations is ongoing and will continue ahead of the debate on 24th March.
Financial and staffing implications
There are no financial or staffing implications arising from this amendment.
Children's Rights Impact Assessment
It is considered that this amendment has no direct or indirect impact on children and that the duty to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not arise. Accordingly, a Children's Rights Impact Assessment is not required under the Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 2022.