Medicinal Cannabis Driving NSW: 2026 Law, Penalties & Defences

Tens of thousands of patients across New South Wales hold a lawful prescription for medicinal cannabis. They use it for chronic pain, anxiety, sleep disorders, PTSD, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and the side effects of cancer treatment. Yet under current medicinal cannabis driving NSW law, the moment any of these patients gets behind the wheel with even a trace of THC in their saliva, they are committing a criminal traffic offence. No impairment is required. No bad driving needs to be proven. The legal status of the medicine in their bloodstream counts for nothing.

This is the harsh reality of medicinal cannabis driving NSW law in 2026. The state remains one of the few Australian jurisdictions that has not moved to protect prescribed patients from prosecution. Drivers using legally dispensed THC-containing products face the same penalties as those who have consumed illicit cannabis recreationally: a mandatory licence disqualification, a fine, and a criminal traffic conviction on their record.

Barsha Defence Lawyers acts for prescribed patients charged under section 111 of the Road Transport Act 2013 across Local Courts throughout Western Sydney and the Hills District. We see firsthand how these prosecutions devastate people who have done nothing more than take their prescribed medication. This guide explains where the law currently sits, what reform is on the horizon, what defences remain available, and what you should do if you have been charged.

The current state of medicinal cannabis driving NSW law

Medicinal cannabis has been legal to prescribe in Australia since October 2016. Patients can access products through their treating doctor or an authorised prescriber under the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s Special Access Scheme. Products range from CBD-dominant oils, which contain little or no THC, through to balanced and THC-dominant preparations used for conditions where THC is therapeutically necessary.

The problem for NSW patients is that the road transport law has not kept pace with the prescribing regime. The criminal offence created by section 111 of the Road Transport Act 2013 captures any detectable amount of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in oral fluid, blood, or urine. The statute makes no distinction between a recreational user and a patient using lawfully dispensed medicine in accordance with their prescription. As NSW Police operational guidance bluntly confirms, there is no medical defence to the offences specified in the Road Transport Act 2013 for using prescribed medicinal cannabis.

This produces outcomes that strike many observers as fundamentally unjust. A patient who took a prescribed dose the previous evening, slept, and drove to work the next morning can fail a roadside test. A cancer patient using THC-containing oil to manage chemotherapy nausea can lose their licence on the way to their oncology appointment. A veteran using prescribed medicinal cannabis for PTSD can pick up a criminal record while driving entirely safely. The medicinal cannabis driving NSW regime treats all of them the same as someone who smoked a recreational joint that morning.

The injustice has been recognised at the highest levels of NSW government. The 2024 NSW Drug Summit specifically recommended reform. Multiple bills have been brought before Parliament. Yet as at the time of writing, no medical defence has been enacted. Patients remain exposed.

Section 111 Road Transport Act 2013: the presence offence explained

To understand why medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions are so difficult to defend, you need to understand exactly what section 111 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) requires the prosecution to prove. This is the statutory foundation of every medicinal cannabis driving NSW charge brought in this state.

The section creates the offence of driving, attempting to drive, or supervising a learner driver while a prescribed illicit drug is present in your oral fluid, blood, or urine. The prescribed illicit drugs are defined in section 4 of the Act and include:

• delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, which is the psychoactive compound in cannabis
• methylamphetamine, commonly called ice
• 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, known as MDMA or ecstasy
• cocaine

Notice what is not on the list. The active components of prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, sleeping tablets, antihistamines, and antidepressants are not prescribed illicit drugs under section 111. A patient prescribed strong opiates for chronic pain who drives the morning after taking them is not committing a section 111 offence. The patient prescribed THC for the same chronic pain condition is. This inconsistency sits at the heart of the criticism of the current medicinal cannabis driving NSW regime.

What the prosecution must prove

To secure a conviction under section 111, the police prosecutor needs only to establish two elements beyond reasonable doubt:

1. That you were driving, attempting to put a vehicle in motion, or sitting beside a learner driver in a vehicle on a road or road-related area
2. That a prescribed illicit drug was present in your oral fluid, blood, or urine at the relevant time

That is the entire case. The prosecutor does not need to prove you were impaired. They do not need to prove that you knew the drug was in your system. They do not need to prove that you intended to drive while drug-affected. They do not need to prove that you used the substance recreationally or that your driving was in any way compromised.

Driving under the influence: section 112

It is worth contrasting section 111 with the separate offence in section 112 of the Road Transport Act 2013, which deals with driving under the influence of alcohol or any drug. Section 112 is impairment-based. The prosecution must prove the driver was actually under the influence, which requires evidence of affected driving, observed intoxication, or similar. Section 112 captures any drug, including legitimately prescribed medications, but only where impairment can be proven.

This is why medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions are almost always brought under section 111 rather than section 112. The police do not need to prove impairment, only presence. The threshold is dramatically lower. A patient who took THC oil three days ago and is now driving entirely safely can be convicted under section 111. They could never be convicted under section 112 on the same facts.

Penalties for medicinal cannabis driving NSW offences

The penalty consequences for medicinal cannabis driving NSW offences depend on whether the matter is dealt with by penalty notice or in court, and whether the offence is a first or subsequent one within a five-year period.

Penalty notice pathway

Since May 2019, NSW Police have had the option of issuing an on-the-spot penalty notice for a first medicinal cannabis driving NSW offence rather than requiring the matter to go to court. The penalty notice carries:

• A fine of $572
• An automatic three-month licence disqualification
• No conviction recorded on your criminal record

For many drivers, the penalty notice is the path of least resistance. It avoids a court appearance, avoids legal costs, and avoids a formal conviction. The disqualification still takes effect, but the matter is concluded administratively.

Court pathway

If you elect to have the matter dealt with in court, or if the police choose to send the matter to court rather than issuing a penalty notice, the maximum penalties are higher. For a first offence:

• Maximum fine of 20 penalty units, currently $2,200
• An automatic six-month licence disqualification, which the magistrate may reduce to a minimum of three months
• A conviction recorded as a major traffic offence

For a second or subsequent offence within five years, the penalties escalate sharply:

• Maximum fine of 30 penalty units, currently $3,300
• An automatic twelve-month disqualification, which the magistrate may reduce to a minimum of six months
• A second strike on the major traffic offence register

Hidden costs of a conviction

The headline penalty figures understate the real cost of a medicinal cannabis driving NSW conviction. A drug driving conviction recorded against your name can:

• Affect future employment, particularly for jobs that require driving, working with vulnerable people, or maintaining a clean traffic record
• Trigger insurance premium increases or refusals of cover
• Affect visa or citizenship applications, with character grounds engaged for certain visa subclasses
• Affect professional registration in regulated industries
• Be disclosed in National Police Checks for the next ten years

For patients who rely on driving for work, the disqualification period alone may mean losing a job, losing income, or losing the ability to attend medical appointments. The impact on rural and outer-metropolitan residents is particularly severe, as former Magistrate David Heilpern has frequently observed, because public transport is rarely a viable alternative.

How THC is detected at the roadside in medicinal cannabis driving NSW operations

NSW Police conduct mobile drug testing using saliva swabs at roadside operations. The driver is asked to provide a sample by running a collection device along their tongue. The initial swab is screened on a roadside device. If that returns a positive indication, a second confirmatory test is conducted in a mobile testing vehicle. If that also returns positive, the driver is taken for a third laboratory-grade analysis, the result of which is what gets tendered in court.

The testing regime is calibrated to detect any presence of THC, regardless of quantity. This is the source of the central injustice in medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions. The pharmacology of THC means it can remain detectable in oral fluid for extended periods after the impairing effects have worn off entirely.

How long does THC stay in your saliva?

Research and clinical experience indicate that THC can be detected in saliva:

• For 4 to 8 hours after a single low dose in an occasional user
• For 12 to 24 hours after a moderate dose
• For multiple days in regular users, including patients taking prescribed THC products daily
• For up to a month in heavy chronic users, according to research cited by the National Institutes of Health

The peak impairing effect of inhaled THC typically resolves within two to four hours. Orally administered THC oils may take longer to peak but the impairment window is still measured in hours, not days. A prescribed patient who took their evening dose at 9 pm and drives at 8 am the next morning is, pharmacologically speaking, no more impaired than someone who had two glasses of wine the night before. Yet they may still test positive at the roadside.

What about CBD-only products?

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is the non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in cannabis. CBD-only medicinal cannabis products are unlikely to result in a positive roadside test for THC, because the screening device specifically targets delta-9-THC rather than CBD. However, patients should be aware that some products marketed as CBD-only can contain trace amounts of THC, and some patients may convert small amounts of CBD to THC metabolites. The only way to be certain is to confirm the precise composition of your prescribed product with your prescriber or pharmacist before driving.

R v Narouz and the death of the honest mistake defence

For many years, drivers charged under section 111 had a potential defence available: honest and reasonable mistake of fact. The classic example came in the 2016 case of NSW Police v Carrall [2016] NSWLC 4, decided by then-Magistrate David Heilpern in Lismore Local Court. This was the high-water mark for defendants in medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions. The defendant had smoked cannabis nine days before driving, after being told by the very police officer who later tested him that waiting a week would be sufficient. Magistrate Heilpern accepted that Carrall honestly and reasonably believed there was no longer any THC in his system, and acquitted him on that basis.

In subsequent rulings, including Police v McKenzie in 2017 (a patient using medicinal cannabis for cancer) and Police v Spackman in 2019 (a driver exposed to second-hand smoke), Magistrate Heilpern applied the same defence to acquit prescribed and inadvertent users. The defence was widely understood among NSW criminal practitioners to be available, at least in appropriate cases.

The 2024 NSWCCA decision

That position changed dramatically in R v Narouz [2024] NSWCCA 14. Mina Narouz had been convicted of drug driving in the Local Court after testing positive for cocaine. He gave evidence that he had not used cocaine for a year and offered an explanation involving drinking from a sports drink bottle in a friend’s vehicle. The matter ultimately reached the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on questions of law referred by District Court Judge Buscombe.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, with Justice Chen delivering the leading judgment and Chief Justice Bell and Justice Harrison concurring, held that section 111 creates an offence of absolute liability. The defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available. The prosecution does not need to prove that the accused knew, suspected, or had any reason to suspect that the drug was in their system.

“In relation to an offence of strict liability, the ground of exculpation, honest and reasonable mistake of fact, is available. On the other hand, if the offence is one of absolute liability, where mens rea forms no part of the offence and guilt is established by proof of the elements, that ground of exculpation is not available to an accused.” — Justice Chen, R v Narouz [2024] NSWCCA 14

The practical effect of Narouz on medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions is severe. A prescribed patient who took their medicine the previous evening, who genuinely believed the THC had cleared their system, who was relying on advice from their prescriber, and who was not impaired in any way, has no defence available based on that honest and reasonable belief. The defence that produced the Carrall, McKenzie, and Spackman acquittals is gone.

Reform bills addressing medicinal cannabis driving NSW law in 2026

Pressure for reform has been mounting for nearly a decade. The Drive Change campaign, led by former Magistrate David Heilpern, has campaigned consistently for a medical defence. Patient advocacy groups, the Pharmacy Guild, prescribers, and a growing number of cross-bench MPs have called for change. In February 2026, that pressure produced a concrete legislative proposal.

The Greenwich and Buckingham bill

Independent MP for Sydney Alex Greenwich and Legalise Cannabis MLC Jeremy Buckingham introduced a bill to NSW Parliament in February 2026 to establish a medical defence for medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions. The bill is co-sponsored by an unusually broad cross-bench coalition including:

• Alex Greenwich MP (Sydney)
• Jeremy Buckingham MLC (Legalise Cannabis Party)
• John Ruddick MLC
• Roy Butler MP (Barwon)
• Judy Hannan MP (Wollondilly)
• Dr Joe McGirr (Wagga Wagga)
• Greg Piper MP (Lake Macquarie)

The proposed reform would operate in two phases. In the initial phase, drivers who test positive for THC and hold a valid prescription would be able to have the offence overturned in court on medical grounds. After a six-month transition period, prescribed patients with evidence of lawful use would not be issued penalty notices at the roadside, provided the testing officer holds a reasonable belief that the driver is not impaired or under the influence of THC.

Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann has also introduced separate reform legislation, the Road Transport Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2025, which proposes a fuller medical defence excluding prescribed patients from the section 111 offence where lawful use can be established.

The Minns Government position

The Minns Labor Government has, to date, not supported either reform package. The Premier and Roads Minister have indicated a preference for awaiting the outcome of a Victorian medicinal cannabis driving trial before considering broader reform in NSW. The Victorian trial is expected to report in mid-2026.

An NSW Drug Summit held in late 2024 specifically recommended that the government introduce a medical defence for people using legally prescribed cannabis who are driving but not impaired. The recommendation has not yet been implemented.

Medicinal cannabis driving NSW law compared with other Australian states

NSW now stands as something of an outlier among Australian jurisdictions when it comes to medicinal cannabis driving NSW patients. Several states have already moved to address the unfairness of penalising prescribed patients, with varying degrees of protection.

Tasmania

Tasmania has provided a medical defence to drug driving for prescribed medicinal cannabis patients since 2017. A driver who tests positive for THC may rely on the defence if they hold a valid prescription, took the medicine in accordance with the prescription, and was not impaired to the extent that they could not properly control the vehicle. This is the most patient-friendly regime in Australia.

Victoria

Victoria amended the Road Safety Act 1986 in 2025 to give courts discretion not to cancel a driver licence where the driver tests positive for THC and holds a current prescription used in accordance with medical advice. This is not a full defence to the offence itself, which still results in a finding of guilt, but the licence consequences can be mitigated. A broader Victorian trial is examining whether full reform is justified.

Other jurisdictions

The UK, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, and Ireland all provide some form of medical defence for prescribed THC users who are not impaired. Norway operates a science-based regime with specific concentration limits for different drugs, calibrated to actual impairment thresholds rather than mere presence. New South Wales has not adopted any equivalent framework.

What defences remain available in medicinal cannabis driving NSW cases right now

Despite Narouz closing the honest and reasonable mistake of fact defence, a number of arguments remain available to drivers facing medicinal cannabis driving NSW charges. These will not assist every patient, but in the right factual circumstances they can produce an acquittal, a withdrawal of the charge, or a no conviction outcome.

Challenging the integrity of the testing process

The prosecution must prove the presence of the prescribed illicit drug beyond reasonable doubt. This requires:

• Properly trained and authorised police officers
• Calibrated and certified testing devices
• An unbroken chain of custody for the saliva sample
• A laboratory analysis conducted by a qualified analyst using accepted scientific methods
• A certificate of analysis tendered in accordance with the Act

Each link in this chain provides a potential avenue for challenge. We routinely scrutinise the laboratory certificates, the officer’s evidence about the testing process, the calibration records for the testing device, and the procedure followed at each stage. Where evidentiary deficiencies can be identified, the prosecution case may fall short of the criminal standard.

Challenging identification or driving

Section 111 requires the prosecution to prove that you were the person driving the vehicle at the relevant time. In matters where the police did not directly observe driving, where multiple people were in the vehicle, or where there is a dispute about who was at the wheel, identification may be in issue. Similarly, the prosecution must prove the vehicle was on a road or road-related area, which may be contested where the incident occurred on private property.

Necessity

The common law defence of necessity remains theoretically available, although it is rarely successful and has not been widely tested in section 111 prosecutions. The defence requires the accused to have acted to avoid imminent peril, the actions to have been a reasonable and proportionate response, and the threat to have been such that an ordinary person of the same age and circumstances would have responded in the same way. A medical emergency requiring urgent transport could conceivably engage the defence, though success would depend heavily on the precise facts.

Inadvertent or involuntary consumption

Although Narouz closed the door on honest and reasonable mistake as a defence to the charge itself, evidence of how the substance came to be in the driver’s system may still bear on sentencing. The court has wide discretion at the sentencing stage to take into account the circumstances of the offending. Evidence that the THC came from a lawfully prescribed medication taken responsibly the night before, with no realistic prospect of residual impairment, is highly relevant to whether a conviction should be recorded.

Procedural and constitutional challenges

In appropriate cases, the validity of the charge itself, the jurisdiction of the court, or the admissibility of particular evidence may be challenged. These are technical arguments and will only assist where the prosecution has made a substantive error in how the charge was laid or prosecuted.

Section 10 dismissals and conditional release orders without conviction

Even where a conviction is unavoidable on the merits, NSW criminal courts have a powerful discretion at sentencing that can dramatically alter the outcome in medicinal cannabis driving NSW matters. This discretion is found in section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Section 10 allows a court that has found a person guilty of an offence to dismiss the charge without recording a conviction (section 10(1)(a)) or to discharge the person under a conditional release order without conviction (section 10(1)(b)). In either case, no conviction is recorded, and critically, no automatic licence disqualification flows. The driver walks out of court with their licence intact and no criminal traffic record.

When will a magistrate grant a section 10?

The court must consider:

• The person’s character, antecedents, age, health, and mental condition
• The trivial nature of the offence, if applicable
• The extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed
• Any other matters the court thinks proper to consider

For medicinal cannabis driving NSW matters, the extenuating circumstances limb is particularly important. A prescribed patient using their medicine lawfully and responsibly, who has taken sensible precautions, who has not driven while impaired, and who has otherwise a good driving record, presents very different facts from a recreational user trying to dodge the consequences of an illicit habit.

What we put before the court

To maximise the prospect of a section 10 outcome, we typically prepare:

• A copy of the valid prescription and authorised prescriber documentation
• A letter from the prescribing doctor confirming the medical condition, the prescribed dose, and the time the medicine is typically taken
• Evidence of the medical condition for which the cannabis was prescribed
• Character references addressing the patient’s responsibility and otherwise good character
• Evidence of the impact of a conviction or disqualification on employment, family responsibilities, and access to medical care
• Evidence of completion of the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program where appropriate
• Detailed written submissions setting out the legal basis for a non-conviction order

The Traffic Offenders Intervention Program is a court-recognised educational course that demonstrates remorse and a commitment to safe driving. Completing the program before the sentencing date is consistently weighed favourably by magistrates considering section 10 applications in major traffic offence matters.

Court appeals if you have already been convicted

If you have already been convicted and disqualified at the Local Court, an appeal to the District Court under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 remains available within 28 days of sentence. Severity appeals reconsider the sentence afresh, and the District Court may substitute a section 10 outcome where the Local Court declined to do so. Strict time limits apply, so urgent legal advice is essential if you wish to appeal.

What to do if you have been charged with medicinal cannabis driving NSW offences

Drivers we represent in medicinal cannabis driving NSW matters typically come to us at one of four points: immediately after being stopped at the roadside, after receiving a penalty notice, after being issued a court attendance notice, or after a Local Court conviction with an appeal still possible. Each presents different strategic options.

At the roadside

If you are stopped and tested, remain calm and cooperative. Police are entitled to require the test. Refusing the test creates a separate, more serious offence under sections 81 and 82 of Schedule 3 of the Road Transport Act 2013. Do not attempt to leave the scene. Do not consume anything between testing stages, as this is itself an offence.

You are not obliged to answer questions about what you have used, when, or in what quantity. Provide your name, address, and licence details as required. Beyond that, you may decline to answer questions until you have spoken to a lawyer. Anything you say will be recorded and may be used at any later prosecution.

If you receive a penalty notice

You have 28 days to elect to have a penalty notice dealt with by a court rather than paying the fine. Paying the fine means accepting the disqualification. Court election preserves the option of seeking a non-conviction order. Whether to elect depends on:

• Whether you have a valid prescription and lawful use to point to
• Whether your driving history is otherwise clean
• The impact of a three-month disqualification on your circumstances
• Whether there are any procedural or evidentiary issues with the testing

This is precisely the kind of decision where a free first appointment with a criminal defence lawyer can save you a great deal of trouble. The election deadline is strict and cannot be extended by your lawyer after the event.

If you have been issued a court attendance notice

A court attendance notice requires you to attend the nominated Local Court on the date specified. Failing to attend can result in a conviction recorded in your absence, a warrant for arrest, or in serious cases, contempt proceedings. The first appearance is typically a mention, at which you are expected to enter a plea or seek an adjournment.

Do not enter a plea at the first mention without first obtaining legal advice. Pleas of guilty cannot easily be reversed once entered. A short adjournment to obtain legal advice is almost always granted on request.

If you have been convicted and want to appeal

You have 28 days from the date of sentence to lodge an appeal to the District Court. Severity appeals are heard de novo, meaning the District Court reconsiders sentence as if at first instance. New material can be tendered, including the prescription documentation and prescriber evidence that may not have been before the Local Court. The District Court may set aside the conviction and substitute a non-conviction order.

Frequently asked questions about medicinal cannabis driving NSW

Can I drive at all if I have been prescribed medicinal cannabis containing THC?

Legally, you can drive a vehicle. What you cannot do is drive while any detectable amount of THC remains in your saliva, blood, or urine. The practical effect of this for regular daily users of THC-containing products is that you may be at risk of testing positive at any time, potentially for weeks after stopping use. Patients prescribed THC products should discuss the timing of doses and driving with their prescriber. Some patients choose to switch to CBD-only products to eliminate the risk.

What if my prescription says I am safe to drive?

A doctor’s advice that you are not impaired and that you are safe to drive does not provide a legal defence to a section 111 offence. The offence is based on presence, not impairment. Your doctor’s advice is highly relevant to sentencing and to a section 10 application, but it cannot defeat the charge.

I only took my prescribed dose the night before. Am I still committing an offence the next morning?

If THC remains detectable in your saliva when you drive, yes, you are committing an offence under section 111. The timing of your dose does not provide a defence. This is one of the most frequent and unjust scenarios we see in medicinal cannabis driving NSW prosecutions, and it is a key reason reform is being pursued.

Will I lose my licence if I am convicted?

Yes. A conviction for a first-offence section 111 matter carries an automatic six-month disqualification, which the magistrate may reduce to three months in appropriate cases. A second offence within five years carries a twelve-month automatic disqualification, reducible to six months. A section 10 non-conviction order avoids both the disqualification and the conviction entirely.

Is a drug driving conviction a criminal record?

Yes. A conviction under section 111 is a criminal traffic offence and will appear on a National Police Check for a period of ten years. It is classified as a major traffic offence, which has implications for sentencing of any future traffic matters. A section 10 outcome avoids this entirely.

What if I refused the roadside test?

Refusing a lawful drug test is itself an offence under the Road Transport Act 2013 and carries penalties comparable to or higher than the underlying drug driving offence. The same is true for refusing to provide a blood or urine sample when required at the police station. Do not refuse. If you have concerns, comply with the test and seek legal advice immediately afterwards.

Can I rely on the upcoming reform legislation if my matter is heard before it passes?

No. The proposed bills before NSW Parliament are not yet law. Until they are enacted, the current section 111 regime applies. If the reform passes during the life of your matter, you may be able to seek to rely on transitional provisions, but this would depend entirely on how the legislation is drafted. Do not delay seeking advice in the hope that the law will change in time.

Does the law apply differently if I was driving for work?

The law applies the same way regardless of whether you were driving privately, commuting, or working. However, the impact of a conviction or disqualification on your employment is highly relevant to a section 10 application. Drivers whose livelihoods depend on holding a licence often have stronger section 10 prospects than those who can manage without one.

What about Hills District residents specifically?

Patients living in the Hills District who are charged with medicinal cannabis driving NSW offences will typically have their matters listed at Parramatta Local Court, Blacktown Local Court, or Hornsby Local Court depending on where the alleged offence occurred. Barsha Defence Lawyers maintains offices in both Norwest and Parramatta, with strong local presence in the Hills District. We are listed in the Hills Shire Council Local Business Directory and appear regularly at the courts that serve our local community.

Final thoughts on medicinal cannabis driving NSW

The current NSW law on driving with prescribed THC in your system is, to put it plainly, out of step with the medical reality of how cannabis-based medicines work and how they are prescribed. Tens of thousands of patients are exposed to criminal prosecution for taking medication their doctor has lawfully prescribed. The 2024 Narouz decision removed the last remaining defence that allowed reasonable mistakes to be excused. Reform is on the horizon but has not arrived.

If you are a prescribed patient who has been charged, the most important thing to do is to seek specialist legal advice promptly. The decisions you make in the first few days after being stopped, particularly around whether to pay a penalty notice or elect to take the matter to court, can dramatically affect your final outcome. A section 10 non-conviction order, available in the right cases, preserves your licence and your record entirely. None of that is possible without timely advice and careful preparation.

Barsha Defence Lawyers is committed to defending the rights of prescribed medicinal cannabis patients caught up in the current law. We will continue to advocate for reform while doing everything we can to achieve fair outcomes for clients under the law as it stands.