Reading of 6.7 ug/L: Drug driver crashed into wall with toddler after high-speed police pursuit
A toxicology reading showing 6. 7 ug/L of cannabis — more than three times the prosecution threshold of 2. 0 ug/L — was at the centre of a court hearing after a car driven by a man allegedly on drugs crashed into a wall with a three-year-old child in the vehicle. The defendant admitted dangerous driving, drug driving and possession charges when he appeared at South Cumbria Magistrates’ Court.
Reading of the toxicology and the immediate facts
Jake Davenport, 29, admitted he had dangerously driven an Audi A3 on the A5092 at Millom on August 9 last year and that he had 6. 7 ug/L of cannabis in his system at the time. Prosecutor Peter Kelly, prosecutor at South Cumbria Magistrates’ Court, said: “This has all the hallmarks of an A1 offence. ” The hearing also recorded admissions of possession of Class B cannabis and Class C valium.
The presence of a three-year-old child in the car was emphasised in court. “There was a three-year-old child in the car and an accident which caused damage to a wall, ” Peter Kelly stated. The court heard the crash followed a high-speed police pursuit. The specific reading on the toxicology formed a factual linchpin in the prosecution case, set against the statutory prosecutable limit of 2. 0 ug/L for cannabis.
Legal process, mitigation and immediate penalties
With guilty pleas entered, magistrates ordered a pre-sentence report and adjourned sentencing to Preston Crown Court on May 7. Davenport, of Cleveleys Road, Hoghton, near Preston, was granted unconditional bail and made the subject of an interim disqualification. Magistrates noted that custody was not inevitable and recorded that the defendant was of good character.
The formal steps taken by the court leave the reading and admitted conduct to be weighed alongside the pre-sentence report at Crown Court. The interim disqualification and bail conditions set immediate constraints while the longer-term sentence remains pending. The admitted possession of both cannabis and valium compounds the criminal record that will be considered at sentencing.
What lies beneath the headline: causes, implications and ripple effects
At the factual level, the reading of 6. 7 ug/L establishes a clear breach of the prosecutable limit cited in court. That numeric result interacts directly with admitted driving behaviour — dangerous driving during a police pursuit culminating in a collision that damaged a wall and placed a young child at risk. Those intertwined facts frame how courts will assess culpability, public protection and appropriate punishment when the case returns to Crown Court.
Beyond the immediate courtroom steps, the case raises operational questions for policing and child-safety policy that the court itself will not resolve. It also establishes a forensic precedent in this matter: the laboratory reading, the driving conduct, the presence of a vulnerable passenger and the admitted drug possessions will together shape sentencing options presented to the Crown Court on May 7.
As the legal process moves forward, the weight given to the toxicology reading and the admissions will determine whether magistrates’ early view that custody is not inevitable persists at Crown Court or gives way to a custodial sentence informed by the pre-sentence report.
What will the final sentence — balancing the 6. 7 ug/L reading, the admitted dangerous driving and the presence of a three-year-old passenger — mean for community confidence in road safety and the handling of drug-driving cases?
