LAURYN EAGLE COURTProfessional boxer Lauryn Eagle will appeal her conviction for drug driving, with her lawyer saying she should not be penalised for simply taking her prescribed medication.
The 29-year-old was on Tuesday convicted of driving with an illicit drug in her system, fined $600 and banned from driving for six months.
Magistrate Hugh Donnelly at Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court rejected an application by Eagle’s lawyer Adam Houda to record no conviction, saying it was “not an acceptable sentence” because of her criminal history and poor driving record.
Her case did not attract the leniency which would be afforded to a first time offender.
The magistrate referred to evidence that the methamphetamine detected in her system at a random breath test in July 2017 was an ingredient of Desoxyn, a drug prescribed to her in the US to treat ADHD.
Eagle pleaded guilty to driving with an illicit drug in her system, after the magistrate rejected an application to have the charge disposed of under the Mental Health Act.
According to the police facts, Eagle saw her GP about the side effects she was having from a drug prescribed to her for ADHD and told him her research identified another drug, Desoxyn.
The GP noted the drug was not prescribed in but gave her a prescription she could present to a doctor in the US on her April 2017 attendance at a boxing training camp.
The facts referred to an internet search of Desoxyn, which included a warning about possible impairment when operating machinery or driving.
Referring to NSW law, the magistrate noted there was a defence to consuming morphine if it was prescribed for medicinal purposes but this did not extend to methamphetamines.
“Where a driver is taking any kind of medication, there is an obligation to find out whether it will affect his or her ability to drive,” Mr Donnelly said.
After her guilty plea was entered, Mr Houda asked the magistrate not to record a conviction saying Eagle was not aware that Desoxyn contained the offending ingredient.
“No way in hell she would have driven if she knew that,” he said.
Mr Houda also submitted she had been punished enough because of unfair publicity linking her to an illicit substance.
“Having a conviction recorded against her would be unjust and unconscionable when you take into account the facts in the matter.”