Banned from driving after taking Nurofen

gustafo

saw this on the paper thought id spread it.

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html


Jesus people would want to be well carefull taking over the counter meds if this is the way tis gone.

johnnyskeleton

Funny case. He accepted he was not in control but said it was due to his injuries not due to the codine. The judge presumably was satisfied that that assertion was not credible and there was no doubt that it was the painkillers not the injury that caused the accident. Somewhat unfair that he has to get a 4 year ban for what could have been a very mild form of intoxication/impairment. IMO it would have been fairer to prosecute him for dangerous/careless driving.

Two things:

1. I wasn't aware that the codine levels in nurofen plus could cause that level of intoxication.

2. It just goes to show the common misuderstanding that people have about intoxication - it is not a question of how many drinks I can have or what medication I van take, it's whethe I am capable of driving a vehicle. On a general level, people should ask the same of themselves when they are sick, tired, stressed, upset etc. All these things can impair ones ability to drive.

seamus

The key really is the judge's statement here:

The judge said: "He was taking Nurofen Plus which had codeine. That is an opiate. He was not in proper control of his vehicle… He comes within the definition of being incapable, so I have to find him guilty."

Regardless of whether it was the medication causing him to drive erratically, if a Garda stops you under suspicion of driving under the influence because you are incapable (in his decision) of exercising proper control over the vehicle and you later test positive for any amount of an intoxicating substance, then you are guilty of driving while under the influence.

It doesn't actually matter whether the level of drug in your system would be sufficient to cause intoxication. That only matters with alcohol.

It sounds unfair, but the judge's hands are actually tied in this matter because the defendent was guilty of an offence according to the law.

My suspicion is that there's a little more to it than the defendent's story that his leg injury was causing him to drive erratically, but either way if he was driving when he knew he was incapable (either through injury or intoxication), then he deserved to be stopped and charged.

coylemj

seamus wrote: »

The key really is the judge's statement here:

Regardless of whether it was the medication causing him to drive erratically, if a Garda stops you under suspicion of driving under the influence because you are incapable (in his decision) of exercising proper control over the vehicle and you later test positive for any amount of an intoxicating substance, then you are guilty of driving while under the influence.

It doesn't actually matter whether the level of drug in your system would be sufficient to cause intoxication. That only matters with alcohol.

This is a misconception that has been put about on other fora, it is not an offence just because you have any level of an intoxicating substance, read what you yourself quoted the judge as saying....

"He was not in proper control of his vehicle… He comes within the definition of being incapable"

and the defendant even admitted this....

He accepted that as he drove along Ringmahon Road afterwards, he was not in complete control of the car as a result of the injury but did not feel his driving was erratic or dangerous.

Having a substance in your blood which renders you incapable of exercising proper control of the vehicle, that is what convicts you, not the simple presence of a drug in the system.

I was feeling sorry for the guy until I read this, what a cocktail.....

Reynolds said he had taken paracetamol, Brufen and Nurofen Plus for the pain.

ResearchWill

seamus wrote: »

The key really is the judge's statement here:

Regardless of whether it was the medication causing him to drive erratically, if a Garda stops you under suspicion of driving under the influence because you are incapable (in his decision) of exercising proper control over the vehicle and you later test positive for any amount of an intoxicating substance, then you are guilty of driving while under the influence.

It doesn't actually matter whether the level of drug in your system would be sufficient to cause intoxication. That only matters with alcohol.

It sounds unfair, but the judge's hands are actually tied in this matter because the defendent was guilty of an offence according to the law.

My suspicion is that there's a little more to it than the defendent's story that his leg injury was causing him to drive erratically, but either way if he was driving when he knew he was incapable (either through injury or intoxication), then he deserved to be stopped and charged.

If the erratic driving was due to the injury then the driver may be guilty of careless driving or dangerous driving. If on the other hand the driving was the result of an intoxicant then he is guilty of section 49. But the problem here is that he now gets a 4 year ban for over the counter meds.

In my opinion this law is very unfair, and requires a high court determination on the issue. I believe that the doctor in such cases should not only take the sample but should perform sobriety test.

MagicSean

I think this is a good step towards road safety. I have always believed that a major problem with any legalisation of cannabis or its derivatives in Ireland would be in the area of prosecuting people who drive under its influence. This case has shown that the law is quite adequate in this area.

Marcusm

The 7mg of codeine per tablet should not have a significant intoxifying effect unless e was particularly susceptible. The significant leg injury is much more likely the cause and in driving with leg pain or restriction, he was certainly at least negligent or careless (assuming that it wasn't a left leg and automatic car).

I had some minor knee surgery earlier in the year and can appreciate that a period of non driving was appropriate. That said I was on tablets witha multiple of the level of codeine and didn't feel any drowsiness or loss of function. I would have felt more drowsy after a days work. Different strokes I guess.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Somewhat unfair that he has to get a 4 year ban for what could have been a very mild form of intoxication/impairment.

The article says 6 years.

ResearchWill

Deleted User wrote: »

The article says 6 years.

Sorry the minimum for that offence is 4 years, it's funny at the top level of drink driving you get minimum of 3 years, I can't understand giving a 6 year ban in this case.

But I believe the appeal may produce a different result.

coylemj

ResearchWill wrote: »

Sorry the minimum for that offence is 4 years, it's funny at the top level of drink driving you get minimum of 3 years, I can't understand giving a 6 year ban in this case.

But I believe the appeal may produce a different result.

Was the judge following a set formula for 2nd or subsequent convictions?...

After hearing Reynolds was convicted of drink driving seven years ago, Judge Leo Malone imposed a fine of €600 for the offence and disqualified him from driving for six years, which will come into effect on July 1.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

Was the judge following a set formula for 2nd or subsequent convictions?...

After hearing Reynolds was convicted of drink driving seven years ago, Judge Leo Malone imposed a fine of €600 for the offence and disqualified him from driving for six years, which will come into effect on July 1.

The set formula comes in relation to the different limits ie 1 year ban becomes 2 and 3 becomes 6, so that may have been what he was doing. But I still think its a serious amount of a ban, for over the counter meds.

Just checker the RTA ya for second offence the 4 year ban becomes a six. I think though once there is a 4 year gap then it's a first offence. But that's under the 2010 Act it may have longer before the current Act.

(b) a period of 4 years or more during which such person was not disqualified for holding a driving licence has elapsed since the previous conviction of the person by reference to which the later conviction is, or is by virtue of subsection (7) to be regarded as, a second or subsequent conviction,

the court may, for the purposes of this section, deal with the later conviction as a first conviction.

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

... But I still think its a serious amount of a ban, for over the counter meds...

I don't believe for one minute that is the full story.

Unless someone has a severe susceptibility to codeine (liver damage or whatever), in order to take enough codeine to have the reported effect you'd be close to death from paracetamol overdose.

People working in certain environments who have an evident drink/dug history and with ready access to psychoactive medications, would be highly unlikely to resort to simple OTC medications, IMHO.

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

I don't believe for one minute that is the full story.

Unless someone has a severe susceptibility to codeine (liver damage or whatever), in order to take enough codeine to have the reported effect you'd be close to death from paracetamol overdose.

People working in certain environments who have an evident drink/dug history and with ready access to psychoactive medications, would be highly unlikely to resort to simple OTC medications, IMHO.

It is the second conviction for exactly the same thing I have heard of within a month, both in front of the same judge.

It's a problem with the legislation, of a Garda gives evidence of impaired driving and the blood or urine is positive for an intoxicant, then you may be convicted.

mathepac

It's not the conviction I have issue with, it's the supposed intoxicant identified. I don't see from the court report if a drug-screen was carried out just what the defendant admitted to taking. I also don't see whether blood or urine samples were taken for analysis.

I believe that in a number cases if the truth about what and how much the defendants had taken were known, much wider enquiries might ensue.

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

It's not the conviction I have issue with, it's the supposed intoxicant identified. I don't see from the court report if a drug-screen was carried out just what the defendant admitted to taking. I also don't see whether blood or urine samples were taken for analysis.

I believe that in a number cases if the truth about what and how much the defendants had taken were known, much wider enquiries might ensue.

A GP, Dr Kukaswadia, who called to the Bridewell Garda Station after gardaí arrested Reynolds, said the Nurofen Plus contained codeine.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html#ixzz1icEpPtRv

Dr. Kukaswadia, would have taken a blood or urine sample. Which will just prove positive for in this case an codine. There will be no indication of amount in the test result.

While it is possible to get a conviction with out any sample, as in this case a Dr. Was called to the station I would be pretty certain a sample was taken.

mathepac

ResearchWill wrote: »

... Dr. Kukaswadia, would have taken a blood or urine sample. ...

He may well have but the report does not contain this information so we are only guessing.

ResearchWill wrote: »

... Which will just prove positive for in this case an codine. There will be no indication of amount in the test result. ...

No a urine drug-screen would test positive for "opioids". Codeine is an opioid, or as reported in the paper an "opiate-class" drug, just like methadone, morphine, heroin, etc. A blood test would have to be sent for detailed analysis to get to a more specific drug e.g. codeine

ResearchWill wrote: »

... a Dr. Was called to the station I would be pretty certain a sample was taken.

I would normally be as well so why is the drug screen / drug test information missing from the court report? Was any of it given in evidence? There have been a number of drug-related cases lately where this information is missing from the court reports but almost without exception, the blood-alcohol reading is given in drink-driving cases. Why the different treatment?

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

While it is possible to get a conviction with out any sample, as in this case a Dr. Was called to the station I would be pretty certain a sample was taken.

As you say yourself, a urine screen will simply show up as negative or positive for opiates, whether he had one codeine tablet or shot up on heroin. So it isnt really helpful, particularly when the guy never claimed not to have been taking codeine.

As someone else said, there must be more to this story. While drowsiness, dizziness, sedation is a possibility with Nurofen +, with routine use it is rare enough. Without convincing evidence as to the guys actual clinical condition and demeanour at the time he was picked up, i find it hard to believe that the judge would have found him to have been under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

I presume there was evidence as to his demeanour from the cops and the doctor which was pretty convincing. It amazes me how court reporters so very frequently miss the most important point if the cases they report on.

ResearchWill

mathepac wrote: »

He may well have but the report does not contain this information so we are only guessing.
No a urine drug-screen would test positive for "opioids". Codeine is an opioid, or as reported in the paper an "opiate-class" drug, just like methadone, morphine, heroin, etc. A blood test would have to be sent for detailed analysis to get to a more specific drug e.g. codeine

I would normally be as well so why is the drug screen / drug test information missing from the court report? Was any of it given in evidence? There have been a number of drug-related cases lately where this information is missing from the court reports but almost without exception, the blood-alcohol reading is given in drink-driving cases. Why the different treatment?

Any case I have seen had a sample, the other case I mentioned before the same judge last month had a sample.

The samples from what I have heard go to Dublin first to be checked for drink, then if neg or low for drink go to the uk for the drug test. not sure what happens if the Garda suspects drugs from the outset, I am only guessing they still are tested for drink in case.

My own view, to try and get a conviction without the sample would be very difficult. I would go so far as to say almost impossible, unless the Garda can give evidence of serious issue with balance and inability to string a sentence together etc.

tuxy

coylemj wrote: »

Was the judge following a set formula for 2nd or subsequent convictions?...


[/I]

I think you are correct here anyone I have heard of getting a second conviction for this offence has received a 6 year ban.

I wonder did he get legal advice. I don't think any solicitor would advice him to admit he was not in full control of the vehicle.
The judge had no real choice, the defendant admitted guilt and the judge handed down the guideline sentence.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

As you say yourself, a urine screen will simply show up as negative or positive for opiates, whether he had one codeine tablet or shot up on heroin. So it isnt really helpful, particularly when the guy never claimed not to have been taking codeine.

As someone else said, there must be more to this story. While drowsiness, dizziness, sedation is a possibility with Nurofen +, with routine use it is rare enough. Without convincing evidence as to the guys actual clinical condition and demeanour at the time he was picked up, i find it hard to believe that the judge would have found him to have been under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

I presume there was evidence as to his demeanour from the cops and the doctor which was pretty convincing. It amazes me how court reporters so very frequently miss the most important point if the cases they report on.

I know of a case where the facts are almost the same and the evidence of intoxication was week at best, that resulted in a conviction before the same judge. It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal.

ResearchWill

tuxy wrote: »

I think you are correct here anyone I have heard of getting a second conviction for this offence has received a 6 year ban.

I wonder did he get legal advice. I don't think any solicitor would advice him to admit he was not in full control of the vehicle.
The judge had no real choice, the defendant admitted guilt and the judge handed down the guideline sentence.

He did not admit guilt, he admitted he may not have had proper control of a MPV due to pain, not due to an intoxicant. That is possibly a different offence, but it's not a section 49.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

The key really is the judge's statement here:

The judge said: "He was taking Nurofen Plus which had codeine. That is an opiate. He was not in proper control of his vehicle… He comes within the definition of being incapable, so I have to find him guilty."

Regardless of whether it was the medication causing him to drive erratically, if a Garda stops you under suspicion of driving under the influence because you are incapable (in his decision) of exercising proper control over the vehicle and you later test positive for any amount of an intoxicating substance, then you are guilty of driving while under the influence.

It doesn't actually matter whether the level of drug in your system would be sufficient to cause intoxication. That only matters with alcohol.

It sounds unfair, but the judge's hands are actually tied in this matter because the defendent was guilty of an offence according to the law.

My suspicion is that there's a little more to it than the defendent's story that his leg injury was causing him to drive erratically, but either way if he was driving when he knew he was incapable (either through injury or intoxication), then he deserved to be stopped and charged.

Guilty according to an unfortunate interpretation of the law, but it seems to me that the statute requires a link between the two because the offence is not intoxicated and incapable but itoxicated to such an extent as being incapable. But the President of the high court would not share the same view it would seem

castie

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Funny case. He accepted he was not in control but said it was due to his injuries not due to the codine. The judge presumably was satisfied that that assertion was not credible and there was no doubt that it was the painkillers not the injury that caused the accident. Somewhat unfair that he has to get a 4 year ban for what could have been a very mild form of intoxication/impairment. IMO it would have been fairer to prosecute him for dangerous/careless driving.

Two things:

1. I wasn't aware that the codine levels in nurofen plus could cause that level of intoxication.

2. It just goes to show the common misuderstanding that people have about intoxication - it is not a question of how many drinks I can have or what medication I van take, it's whethe I am capable of driving a vehicle. On a general level, people should ask the same of themselves when they are sick, tired, stressed, upset etc. All these things can impair ones ability to drive.

What accident?

foggy_lad

Maybe the guy was taking a lot more codeine than he admitted to taking so he would be able to get around better and to allow him to drive as it seems his injury was having a serious affect on his driving? Also him being a nurse should have known about the codeine in neurofen plus but maybe he was eating them like smarties? There is a lot more to this than appears in the report.

johnnyskeleton

castie wrote: »

What accident?

Getting caught, of course.