Jobless man banned after driving in Brighton with cannabis in his system

Posted On 09 Sep 2016 at 8:26 pm

An unemployed 22-year-old man has been banned from the roads after being caught driving in Brighton with more than twice the legal limit of cannabis in his system.

Christopher Montgomery was arrested in Lewes Road, Brighton, and charged with driving with 4.8 micrograms of cannabis per litre of his blood. The legal limit is 2 micrograms.

He was also charged with failing to surrender to custody on Wednesday 22 June.

At Brighton Magistrates’ Court, Montgomery, of Furnace Wood, Uckfield, pleaded guilty to both offences.

He was disqualified from driving for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay a £160 fine, £85 costs and a £30 victim surcharge.

Sussex Police said: “More than half the motorists arrested during a summer crackdown on drink and drug driving have now been convicted.”

The force ran a dedicated campaign called Operation Dragonfly from Monday 6 June to Sunday 10 July. Officers arrested 205 people across Sussex and, the force said, 127 have now been convicted and sentenced by the courts.

  1. Dom Kaos Reply

    Is his employment status pertinent to the story, or are you just hoping to appeal to the Jeremy Kyle fans among your readership?

  2. Charlie Reply

    That’s exactly what they’re doing @Dom Kaos

    Totally nothing to do with the story.

    Sidenote: I didn’t know there was a legal limit of cannabis, I thought anyone with it in their system while driving wss breaking the law. You learn something new daily!

  3. Frank le Duc Reply

    Thanks for the comments. The convicted driver’s employment status is pertinent more for legal reasons than anything to do with journalism.
    Those who publish court reports are protected from being sued subject to certain conditions, including making every effort to identify clearly the people involved so that no one is innocently or inadvertently defamed. Long ago a judge said that the basic identifying details were name, age, address and occupation. We include these details whenever we can.

  4. Adrian Rainbow Reply

    Thing is, the definition , “under the influence” is extremely misleading when it’s common knowledge that cannabis can be detected up 40 days after the ‘influence’ has abated.
    Cannabis users are being victimised.
    Imagine if you could be arrested for driving “under the influence” of alcohol, 10 days after a wedding reception!

Leave a Reply to Frank le Duc Cancel reply


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.