Sharlotte’s Law Suggested Wording

In your view, should oral fluid and other samples (such as saliva and sweat) be used in drug driving forensic analysis?

Yes.

Why did you give this answer?

Oral fluid, saliva and other non-invasive samples should be used as an initial and practical means of identifying whether drugs may be present. They support quicker decision-making at the roadside or in hospital settings and allow enforcement action to proceed without unnecessary delay.

These methods should complement, not replace, blood testing, which remains the most reliable form of forensic evidence in serious cases. Used together, non-invasive screening and evidential blood testing would improve both effectiveness and fairness while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

How do you think hospital procedures for drink and drug driving suspects could be improved?

Hospital procedures should be changed so that blood samples lawfully taken from drink or drug driving suspects can be analysed without requiring the suspect’s consent, particularly where a collision has resulted in serious injury or death.

Currently, Subsection 4 of Section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires consent before a blood sample can be tested, even though police may already take the sample without consent. This causes significant delays where suspects are unconscious, medically incapacitated, or refuse to cooperate.

This consent requirement should be removed in cases involving fatal or life-changing collisions. Refusal to consent without reasonable excuse is already an offence, meaning the current provision operates as a procedural barrier rather than a meaningful safeguard.

Introducing Sharlotte’s Law would allow samples lawfully taken after serious or fatal collisions to be tested promptly, supporting timely investigations and sparing families unnecessary delay.

How do you think current law and practice regarding drink and drug testing could be improved?

The law should be amended to remove the requirement for a suspect’s consent before a blood sample can be analysed following serious or fatal road traffic collisions.

Specifically, Subsection 4 of Section 7A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 should be changed so that blood samples lawfully taken after fatal or life-changing collisions can be tested without consent. At present, this requirement allows investigations to be delayed where suspects refuse consent or are medically unable to provide it.

This serves little practical purpose. Refusal to consent without reasonable excuse is already an offence, so the consent requirement functions as a procedural obstacle rather than a safeguard. Removing it would enable timely testing, strengthen enforcement, and reduce prolonged uncertainty for bereaved families.