Source:
CCNEWZ
Pubdate:
October 2005
Subj:
The Law: is it always right?
Author:
Alun Buffry
Web:
http: //www.ccnewz.com
The
Law is it ALWAYS right?
It’s
often easy for people to see that repressive laws in other countries are in
some way wrong. Maybe they contravene
Rights, are bias or give preferential treatment one section of the community,
or just don’t make sense they are not
in the public interest.
But
what about here in the UK? Are of
Governments, whatever the party, somehow divinely inspired and never make
mistakes? Or do we have bad laws
to? And if we do have bad laws, how do
we get them changed or repealed?
What
happens when our Government refuses to listen to protests, petitions,
letters? What can we do to change the
law? In short, next to nothing! We can elect a different Government (or try
to) and hope for the best.
That’s
all folks! But is that the end? Does that leave us at the mercy of the
politicians and the lawyers? Not
quite: read on.
The
POWER of the JURY
A few
years ago, (1998), I wrote to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, asking whether
the jury had the right to judge the justice of the law itself, after reading of
such powers in the US.
The
reply from the Court Service stated that although the jury cannot judge the law
itself, it is up to them “to apply the law as they see fit”. So it is quite clear, that as member of a
jury, whatever the judge or anyone else says, it is your duty and
responsibility not simply whether to ascertain guilt or innocence through the
evidence presented in the trial, but also to consider whether or not the law
has been correctly applied.
If you
think the defendant should not even have been taken to court, despite the
evidence, then you can say NOT GUILTY!
MIS-APPLICATION
OF THE LAW
So
what sort of case are we talking about here?
One
obvious case would be seen if you watched the trial of a man for breaking into
a house when clearly his purpose and intention was to rescue people from a
fire. Or if he broke into a car to save
a life. The evidence of forced
entry a criminal offence would be clear enough; the man may even have
admitted everything. But should he be
punished?
Another
case would be if a police officer, forensic scientist, were prosecuted for
possession of an illegal drug when clearly it was in the course of his
duty. Or in fact, a teacher, parent or
doorman who had confiscated the drug with the intention of handing it in. In both cases it would be unjust to find
them guilty and punish them, if not simply silly.
Fortunately
such prosecutions are rare but what
about individual cases? How should we
decide whether the law has been correctly applied? One thing is for sure
neither judge, prosecution nor defence lawyers are likely to be of much
help in the courtroom; after all, they earn their money by appearing there.
A
CRIME WITHOUT A VICTIM
You
may have heard of holiday makers taking their medication abroad where it is
illegal, and getting prosecuted? Is
that RIGHT? Is that JUST? Even though the laws of that country are
quite explicit and those laws were broken (ignorance is no excuse).
What
about a person in this country who is using a banned (illegal) substance to
relieve intense pain, having found no alternative? That is: out of dire necessity?
In the
case of cannabis, a plant grown and used medically in the UK and around the
globe for hundreds and thousands of years
a plant known to relieve suffering from many ailments yet it has never
killed any and has no fatal overdose?
What
would you do, faced with intense pain?
Break the law or suffer agony and humiliation?
The
Government flies in the face of literally MILLIONS of people who testify to the
medical properties of cannabis, also known as hemp and marijuana, by denying
that it has any medical value at all, despite licensing research into
extracts. Furthermore, the High Court
in London has ruled that the defence of medical “necessity” whereby people
could hope to escape conviction is not valid.
SO
ITS’ UP TO YOU
How can
you, the JUROR, decide whether or not the law is being correctly applied in the
case of possession, cultivation, or even supply, if it was for medical reasons?
Maybe
a good starting point is to ask whether anyone has been helped, or hurt. Has there been any malice or threats, has
there been any victims, has there been any property ruined or Rights infringed,
has society been upset, has the safety and security of the country been put at
risk?
It
would be very hard to say yes to any of those questions in most cannabis cases,
so why are the cases happening? Surely
the law is meant to protect the people, their houses and possessions, their
rights, and the security and safety of the environment and the society we live
in.
If the
law is not doing that, why the court case?
As a
member of a JURY (most of us will be at some time during our lives) you alone
have the POWER to see JUSTICE.
If you
think the law has been MIS-APPLIED (and I am thinking specifically of medical
cannabis possession and supply here when it prevents agony), it is UP TO
YOU. You can return the JUST
verdict NOT GUILTY.
Nobody
is allowed to pressurise you into doing otherwise. THAT is certainly one way to halt the senseless prosecutions that
cost sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds, do many-fold times more harm
than good.
NO VICTIM NO CRIME = NOT GUILTY