In early 2025, M.A.J Law represented a young adult, whom we’ll call Z, who faced charges for drug-driving and possession of cannabis. At first glance, the case appeared straightforward. However, as we dug deeper, significant safeguarding concerns arose - particularly regarding Z’s cognitive vulnerabilities and the conduct of police during the arrest and detention process.
Client Background
Z had been diagnosed in childhood with a neurodevelopmental disorder associated with early brain injury. This condition impacts executive functioning, decision-making, and the ability to understand cause and consequence. He also experiences high levels of anxiety, which intensify under stress or authority.
.
Having left education in his early teens and been under mental health services for much of his adolescence, Z had difficulty navigating official procedures and required additional support to engage with the legal system. His mother had previously acted as an appropriate adult in earlier interactions with the police, but was not present on this occasion - a key point of concern.
The Allegations
Z was charged with:
-
Driving with an excess level of THC in the bloodstream, contrary to Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
-
Possession of cannabis, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Upon arrest, Z was taken into custody without an appropriate adult present, despite clear indicators of vulnerability. According to his mother, Z often struggles with verbal instructions, particularly when under pressure, and has limited understanding of legal rights and responsibilities.
Legal Strategy
We immediately reviewed the police's procedure during Z’s detention and noted significant failings under PACE Code C, which mandates the presence of an appropriate adult when a person is suspected to be vulnerable. Furthermore, we challenged whether Z had been given, or understood, the statutory warning about providing a specimen for analysis, as required by Section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act.
.
Expert evidence from a clinical psychologist confirmed Z's difficulties with comprehension and memory retention, particularly under stress. It was clear that Z’s cognitive processing challenges may have prevented him from fully understanding the implications of refusing or failing to provide a sample.
.
We presented relevant case law highlighting that even if a warning is technically issued, it is not considered valid unless it is understood by the individual concerned (Beck v Sager, Somerset v Singh).
Court Proceedings
The court accepted that Z’s condition substantially affected his ability to understand and follow the statutory procedure. While the court acknowledged that the failure to provide an appropriate adult breached PACE, it clarified that this alone would not invalidate the entire procedure.
.
However, based on expert evidence and oral submissions, the court concluded that Z did not understand the statutory warning, and therefore could not be held criminally liable for the drug-driving allegation.
.
Z was found not guilty of drug-driving, but entered a guilty plea for cannabis possession, for which he received a conditional discharge. He was ordered to pay a minimal fine and victim surcharge.
Outcome
This outcome enabled Z to avoid a conviction for a driving offence - something that would have significantly affected his future prospects. The possession charge, while recorded, resulted in no punishment due to the conditional discharge and will be considered “spent” after a 12-month period, assuming no further offences are committed.
.
The case prompted discussions about police training in identifying vulnerable individuals and reinforced the importance of adhering to safeguards when dealing with neurodivergent or cognitively impaired suspects.
Reflections
This case underlines the critical importance of:
-
Identifying cognitive vulnerabilities early and raising them formally with the police and court.
-
Challenging procedural fairness under PACE and the Road Traffic Act when due process isn’t followed.
-
Ensuring expert reports and parental involvement are incorporated into a client’s legal strategy.
At M.A.J Law, we believe every individual, regardless of diagnosis, disability or background - deserves equal access to justice and support throughout the legal process.
