Which statement best describes the defence to charges under S5A RTA 1988?

• A. The specified controlled drug had been prescribed for medical purposes, taken with instructions given, and the possession of the drug immediately before taking it was not unlawful under S5(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
• B. The drug was prescribed but not taken with any instructions.
• C. The drug was not a specified controlled drug.
• D. The offence is not within the scope of the RTA 1988.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is a statutory defence for drug-driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988. If the specified controlled drug was prescribed for medical purposes and was taken strictly in accordance with the medical directions, the offence can be defeated because the drug was being used as part of legitimate medical treatment rather than illicit possession or use. The additional point that the drug was lawfully possessed immediately before taking it under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 reinforces that the drug wasn't illegally in the driver's possession at the moment of taking it. This combination—prescribed use, taking it as directed, and lawful possession—provides a defence to a drug-driving charge.

The other situations do not fit the defence: simply being prescribed but not following instructions does not establish a defence; if the drug is not a specified controlled drug, the s5A offence may not apply; and claiming the offence is outside the scope of the RTA 1988 ignores the specific drug-driving framework that this defence addresses.