Draft Road Traffic Law (Drug Driving)(Jersey) Amendment Regulations
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.
WQ.83/2026
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE BY DEPUTY I. GARDINER OF ST. HELIER NORTH
QUESTION SUBMITTED ON MONDAY 16th 2026
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON MONDAY 23rd 2026
Question
"In relation to the Draft Road Traffic Law (Drug Driving) (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202– (P.32/2026), will the Minister advise what consideration, if any, was given to the introduction of a statutory medical defence as in Section 5A of the UK Road Traffic Act 1988, and if no such consideration has been given, will he explain why not?"
Answer
Careful consideration was given to a statutory medical defence as used in the UK under Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which provides a defence where a controlled drug is lawfully prescribed and taken in accordance with medical directions.
Having taken expert advice and reviewed the options, a clearer two-tiered limit approach tailored for Jersey has been proposed to account for medicinal cannabis users on the Island. Rather than introducing a statutory medical defence along with a single universal THC limit of 2µg/L, as is done in the UK, the draft Jersey regulations propose:
• 5µg/L for the general driving population; and
• 2µg/L for Group2 (medium and heavy goods) / PSV licence holders (taxicabs and buses), registered driving instructors when instructing, and any driver who is also over the prescribed alcohol limit
In practice, the 5µg/L general limit is intended to avoid per-se prosecutions of compliant medicinal-cannabis patients within the general driving population, who would often read above 2µg/L but below 5µg/L, while still applying a 2µg/L threshold in higher-risk categories and in cases involving excess alcohol.
This approach recognises local prescribing patterns while providing clarity and enforceability. It avoids the need to litigate individual medical-use defences for compliant patients, saving time and reducing complexity for the Police and Courts, and it safeguards road safety by applying a lower limit to higher-risk driving categories and in situations involving excess alcohol.1
Consequently, a separate statutory medical defence, was considered unnecessary within Jersey's proposed framework.