|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
This would appear to be legal history!
Don Barnard Press Release
Thursday 14 Nov 2002 Following the news of the JURY in the case against free Cannabis returning a "PERVERSE" verdict on all charges. [could not agree] and this judge dismissing the case against Tony Taylor LCA Spokesperson Don Barnard " For a number of years I have asserted all judges should be compelled to have a fully informed jury deliberate the facts and inform them of their rights powers, So I was pleased to see a Judge AT LAST tell the jury it was in its power to bring in a verdict in the face of the law: "While, Insisting they did not have the right to do so. Judge Karsten correctly informed them: It was in their power to return such a verdict in the face of the evidence. This would appear to be legal history! "I feel vindicated" See The fully informed jury - Cannabis Law and Drug Testing 1999. http://www.lca-uk.org/displayitem.php?articleid=576 "In short, it is a juror's duty to judge the application of law itself, and not just whether a defendant has committed a crime according to that law. "It was because of US jurors using this right to bring in not guilty verdicts in alcohol prohibition cases that the US government was forced to repeal alcohol prohibition...everyone knew someone who consumed alcohol; people no longer saw it as a crime. "I believe that when all judges fully inform the jury in the future - which surely they must - we will see this replicated by more and more UK juries in minor cannabis offences - everyone knows somebody who uses cannabis! INCIDENTALLY. IF I was right about this is it possible many of the other predictions made in Cannabis Law and Drug Testing might be true also! Why not compare some of them with government policy? background court reports by LCA Newshawk [see eds. notes] CONTACTS: Free Rob Cannabis, 01458 833 713; Cannabis In Avalon, 01458 833 236 Tony Taylor Tony's Hemp Corner, 020 7837 5223 Go well Don Barnard Legalise Cannabis Alliance PO BOX 198 Norwich NR3 3WB http://www.lca-uk.org Reply to agit8@barnard.lca-online.net Phone 07984 255015 Editors notes The cannabis movement scored a double victory in London courts yesterday, Nov.13, where charges against Tony Taylor pertaining to his running a medicinal cannabis dispensary were dismissed and the jury in the trial of Free Rob Cannabis failed to reach a verdict! Both trials were scheduled to start on Monday - Armistice Day. At Central Guildhall, Free Rob Cannabis was representing himself in his fourth Crown Court trial, indicted on three counts: offering cannabis for sale at an auction he conducted @ Speakers' corner on 29 September 2001; possessing two addressed envelopes of cannabis with intent to supply it to the named MS patients; possessing some cannabis that was found when police searched his home in Glastonbury. At Snaresbrook, Tony Taylor was charged with dispensing cannabis from his premises in Caledonian Road, which were raided by Customs officers in June, 2001, following the delivery of 13 kilo-weight packages of Swiss grass that had been piling up at the post office. Tony had admitted to the press that he dispensed cannabis to around 250 customers, each of whom supplied a letter of recommendation from their doctor and signed an agreement to appear as witnesses in Tony's defence in the event of his prosecution. The Free Cannabis trial was preceded by a discussion between Judge Karsten, Ms Strickland for the Crown and Free Rob Cannabis, representing himself. The Judge struggled to comprehend exactly what Mr Cannabis hoped to achieve in his trial, bearing in mind that he didn't dispute the evidence against him, and pointed out that any attempt to invoke article 9.1 of the European Declaration of Human Rights was bound to fail in the light the Court of Appeal Judgement in R vs. Paul Taylor of October 2001. That judgement declared that 'the [UN] Conventions of 1961 and 1998. provided powerful evidence of an international consensus that an unqualified ban on the possession of cannabis with intent to supply is necessary to combat public health and public safety dangers arising from such drugs.' Free Rob explained that defence would consist of a statement of his beliefs with regard to cannabis, a brief discussion of the origins of prohibition, and an assertion of his Human Rights. Judge Karsten summarised by saying that Mr Cannabis would admit the facts of the case against him, but direct the jury to deliver a 'perverse verdict' of not guilty on the grounds that the Misuse of Drugs Act is an unjust law. Whereupon, the judge would advise the jury that they should judge the evidence presented to them in the light of the law as it stands. That clear, the jury was empanelled and the trial began with testimony from senior police officers who were in charge when Rob was arrested. They cheerfully admitted forcibly restraining Mr Cannabis, even though he didn't offer any resistance, and subjecting him to an intimate search, even though he readily admitted that there was cannabis in his bag. A video was shown of the auction: 7g organic, Swiss-grown Hindu Kush weed with a glass pipe to smoke it in went for 70; 5g pollinator hash from Switzerland, plus a pipe, made 52; 4g Afghani hash with a pipe fetched 55... At Snaresbrook, the prosecution failed to turn up to pursue the case against Tony Taylor. A stand-in barrister admitted that he wasn't properly acquainted with the case and didn't know the whereabouts of a video tape that was shot at the time of the raid on Tony's Hemp Corner. The defence claimed that this tape would demonstrate that the cannabis dispensary was an entirely medicinal concern, as it showed filing cabinets containing records, etc. The prosecution agreed to produce this vital piece of evidence before the trial began. Then a jury was empanelled and sent home. On Tuesday, nothing much happened at Tony's trial. The defence arrived with up to a dozen of Tony's patients and a couple of Experts attached to GW Pharmaceuticals: Dr Willy Notcutt of James Paget Hospital, Great Yarmouth, who has been conducting the GW trials; and Leslie Iverson, visiting professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, who was a specialist adviser to the House of Lords science and technology committee. Once again, the prosecution failed to turn up! After about three hours, a lone copper appeared to explain that the police were having trouble laying hands on the crucial video tape. At the Guildhall, the case against Free Rob was concluded on Tuesday with the evidence of a policeman from Glastonbury, who had searched his house and confiscated his girlfriend's life savings from her wardrobe, but ignored a bowl full of odd bits of cannabis in the middle of the floor in Rob's room. Then Rob prefaced his defence with an invocation to Shiva, which no doubt brought a novel element to the proceedings. I didn't witness his performance, but arrived around 3pm, just before the jury was sent out to consider their verdict. Around 4.20 (!) the jury was recalled and discharged for the evening. The next day, the members of the jury continued to ponder the case of Regina vs. Free Rob Cannabis while the Queen herself arrived in the square outside for the state opening of Parliament. At around 12.15, they asked to be reminded of the oath they took to judge the case on the merits of the evidence presented to them. Judge Karsten pointed out that Rob has not presented any evidence that contradicted the indictment - he admitted it - and that prosecution couldn't argue against the evidence Rob had presented in order to demonstrate his belief that the law against cannabis is unjust, because the Crown in obliged to prosecute the law as it stands. Mr Karsten said it was not the business of the courts to challenge the law and that the jury didn't have the 'right' to reach a perverse verdict, but he conceded that it is within their power to do so. At 12.50, the jury were called back into court and asked if they'd reached a unanimous verdict, which they hadn't, so the Judge said he would accept a majority verdict and adjourned for lunch. Rob's supporters learned from Snaresbrook that the case against Tony Taylor had collapsed. Police had failed to produce their video tape of the raid and had also lost the packaging that the cannabis sent to Tony from Switzerland was wrapped in. The defence wanted to produce this in order to demonstrate that 13 kilos of cannabis represented several weeks' supply and wasn't a single consignment. But it had disappeared. So the judge dismissed the case and instructed the jury to find a verdict of Not Guilty! To reach a majority verdict, ten of the twelve jurors must agree. If more than two jurors dissent from the majority view, then it is a 'hung jury' and no verdict has been reached. In which case, it's up to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not to proceed with a retrial. Soon after 3pm, after they had been deliberating the case against Free Cannabis for a full 24 hours, the members of the jury were called back into court and asked if they had reached a majority verdict? They hadn't. So Judge Karsten declared No Verdict, and dismissed the jury. __________________________________________________
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!