A complicated set of charges
In this Tweed Heads drug DUI case study, Boorman Lawyers appeared at Tweed Heads Local Court on a matter Joshua Boorman describes as quite complicated, because of the number of charges and separate incidents involved.
The first incident
The client was involved in a car accident that caused some injuries. Police charged him with:
- driving under the influence of a drug (cannabis, found in his blood), which Josh describes as the most serious drug driving offence;
- a low range drink driving offence, with a reading of 0.052; and
- negligent driving.
Because the client had a poor record with prior similar offending, the drive under the influence charge was the big issue. Together with the accident, the low range reading and the injuries, it put him at real risk of full-time custody.
Negotiating with police
The client suffers from significant mental health issues, including bipolar disorder and anxiety, and had self-medicated with cannabis daily for a long time. He told Josh, and had told police at the time, that he had not smoked cannabis for at least 24 hours before driving.
Boorman Lawyers made written representations asking police to withdraw the drive under the influence charge and replace it with driving with a drug present. An independent toxicologist’s report said the level of cannabis in his blood was consistent with a regular daily user and would not have impaired a person who smokes regularly. After months of back and forth, police obtained their own toxicologist’s opinion and withdrew the drive under the influence charge.
Three more charges
In the meantime, the client was charged on three further, separate occasions with driving with an illicit drug (cannabis) present. Our lawyer notes that his car appeared to have been flagged by police, and he had quickly learned that he could not keep driving and smoking cannabis regularly. He would have to choose one.
Written submissions in this Tweed Heads drug DUI case study
Because of the number of charges, written submissions were prepared for the court. They set out each charge, the relevant section and the possible penalties, the client’s history, his mental health and circumstances, his tumultuous upbringing and his attitude to the offending, and proposed penalties. Brief oral submissions followed. Josh says the magistrate praised the written submissions and agreed to the proposed penalties.
The outcome
None of the remaining offences carried a term of imprisonment, so they were fine and disqualification offences only. He was convicted on all charges and received:
- the 6-month minimum disqualification for each driving with a drug present charge, except the one involving the crash, which received 9 months;
- 3 months for the low range drink driving offence;
- a fine for negligent driving; and
- fines on each offence, which Josh estimates at about $3,000 to $3,500 in total.
The disqualifications run at the same time, so the longest is 9 months. After that, our lawyer says, he can apply for a new licence, probably with a one-year interlock restriction. The client had expected to be off the road for several years.
What this case shows
Josh says the big win came months before the sentence date, when the drive under the influence charge was withdrawn, because that took a jail sentence out of the equation. Expert evidence and written negotiations with police can change which charges a person ultimately faces. Josh also says that putting submissions in writing can make a complicated matter much easier for a magistrate to follow. The client was very relieved and now has a clear road map for moving forward. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the facts.
Key general information (NSW)
General information only, not legal advice, as at October 2026. Every case turns on its own facts.
- Driving under the influence compared with drug presence: As at October 2026, Transport for NSW lists the court-imposed penalties for a first DUI offence as a maximum fine of $3,300, up to 18 months’ imprisonment, a minimum disqualification of 12 months and an automatic disqualification of 3 years.
- The broad penalty picture: Within those limits, the magistrate decides the penalty, taking into account the person’s traffic record and circumstances.
- Sentencing options: At the lower end, a court can find an offence proved but not record a conviction, either by dismissing the charge or by making a conditional release order (CRO) without conviction.
- The court process: Drink and drug driving charges in NSW are usually dealt with in the Local Court.
Further reading and related videos
Boorman Lawyers has more on appearing at Tweed Heads Local Court, NSW drug driving offences and penalties and negligent driving in NSW. Its NSW DUI site covers drug and drink driving matters across regional NSW.
On this site, see a Lismore repeat drug driving case and a Burwood drug driving case, or browse all NSW and drug driving videos.
For people who are preparing to plead guilty without a lawyer, DIY DUI’s Tweed Heads page covers the local court and plea process. (DIY DUI is a self-help program for people preparing their own guilty plea. It is not legal representation and is not part of Boorman Lawyers.)
Read the video transcript
[unclear] I was just here outside Tweed Heads Local Court and I've appeared on a matter which was quite complicated due to the number of charges that were laid on our client and were presented before the court today going back to the very beginning our client was charged with an incident where he was involved in a car accident the police charged him with a drive under the influence of drugs which is the most serious drug driving offence
It actually means that at the time of driving he was under the influence and impaired by a drug namely cannabis which was found in his blood um at the time of driving he was also charged with a low range drink driving offence, 0.052 very low reading but just over the limit and because of the car crash which did involve some injuries it was quite nasty there was a negligent driving charge which was laid a negligent Drive stock standard negligent driving charge with no death been caused
no [unclear: 'previous polyhound'] being caused so that was the first incident because our client does have such a poor history and prior similar offending on his record um the drive under the influence of drugs was the big issue for him because it really did put him in the range of potentially serving full-time custody especially given the aggravating features involving the car accident the low range drink drive and the injuries that occurred from that incident what we then decided to do is obviously take instructions from our client he told us that he suffers from significant mental health issues including bipolar anxiety
For a long time he has self-medicated using cannabis on a daily basis but he does uh indeed instruct us and did even say to the police at the time of the charge that he had not smoked cannabis for at least 24 hours which goes to show if he's honest in his instructions that he would not have been impaired by cannabis at the time that the offence occurred certainly traces were found in his system and that was done through the blood results which was taken at the hospital
But uh we decided to present the police with some written negotiations uh requesting that they drop the drive under the influence of drugs as charge and reduce it down to drive with the traces of drug in his system we had to go and get an independent toxicologist report whose report turned around and said that the level of cannabis found in his system would not have impaired a person who regularly smokes and our client is a regular cannabis smoker
So over time a level of residual cannabis would build up in a person's system and the level that was found in our clients blood uh does um is consistent with a person who regularly Smokes on a daily basis but not putting him into the range where he would have been impaired by a cannabis at the time of driving after many many months of back and forth the police decided to get their own independent um toxicologist uh opinion they decided to drop the charge of drive under the influence of drugs
So that was the big win for us but that occurred in December 2020 it's now June 2022 and unfortunately over the last 12 months our client has been charged with three other separate charges of drive with an illicit drug in his system his car has obviously been flagged red flagged and at any chance the police would pull him over over to do a random test and because he is such a regular cannabis smoker on three other occasions he was charged with drive with a relevant drug present in his system namely cannabis
So effectively before the court we had uh first incident which uh the drive under the influence of drugs was withdrawn replaced with the drive with drug present a low range drink drive a negligent drive and then we had three other charges on separate occasions which drive with drugs in his system so he's obviously a habitual cannabis smoker but he also drives as well and he has quickly learned that the two aren't conducive with one another you just can't drive
Be a regular cannabis smoker so he's got to give up one of them um and that's his decision moving forward he's gonna have to make that personal choice we because the matter was quite complicated due to the number of charges and number of um uh events which occurred we decided to put on some written submissions to the court to try and simplify the um each matter and provide a bit of a blueprint and a road map as to what each charge entailed what the section was relating to the law what the possible penalties were
Then we also outlined another number of submissions in those written submissions about our clients history his mental health his personal circumstances the tumultuous upbringing he had and obviously his attitude towards the offence we also did propose suggested penalties in relation to the offences which were before the court now the good thing about uh well for our client was that none of these offences carried maximum term of jail so they are fine and disqualification of licence only offences he was convicted on all charges he was effectively given six months disqualification which is the minimum for each of the drive with illicit drug present except for one of them where there was a crash he got nine months for that
He got three months for the low range drink drive and a fine for the negligent drive he also attracted fines for each of the offences which did add up to probably in total around about three to three and a half thousand dollars so he's going to be paying it off for some time but the big win we had a couple of months ago was having the drug drive drive under the influence of drug withdrawn because that took jail sentence out of the equation
Given his prior traffic record he was in the range of receiving a full-time custodial sentence it's fine offences only the highest period of disqualification he got today was nine months um and all the other disqualification periods will run at the same time so in nine months time he'll be eligible to go back to the transport department and apply for a new licence albeit with probably a one-year interlock restriction on it um so yeah very complicated matter it's always good to sometimes put some of our submissions in writing to make it a little bit clearer for the magistrate to follow through we also I got up
Also gave oral submissions in brief format at the end but the magistrate did um I give praise to the uh very uh good uh written submissions we put on and he extended to our requests in relation to proposed penalties uh we had a very relieved client today he thought he was going to be serving several years off the road um but um we're able to convince the court otherwise a very relieved client today he's got a few problems to face in the future
But he needs to manage his way through that but at least he's got a clear road map of how he can move forward from these offences and try and better himself as a person so that's what matters here today at Tweed Heads Local Court thanks for tuning in.
General information only, based on New South Wales law at the time of filming. Not legal advice — every case turns on its own facts. Past results don't guarantee future outcomes.
