|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Who Is Responsible?
Alun Buffry Open Letter to Scottish Executive
Wednesday 30 Jul 2003 To: ceu@scotland.gov.uk,scottish.ministers@scotland.gov.uk, candlist@lca-uk.org Cc: letters_ts@scotsman.com,postbag@orcadian.co.uk,editor@pj.apj.co.uk, letters@theherald.co.uk,letters@mailonsunday.co.uk,editor@pj.ajl.co.uk, letters_sos@scotlandonsunday.com,edit.scot@bigissue.com, editor@sundayherald.com, OPEN LETTER TO Scotland's Minister of Justice Cathy Jamieson MSP; The Scottish Executive Head of Scotland's Justice Department: Alun Buffry PO Box 198 Norwich NR33WB Tel: 01603 442215 Sirs, I refer to the case against Orkney MS sufferer Mrs Elizabeth "Biz" Ivol for the cultivation, possession and supply of cannabis, a class B drug. I am sure that you realise that she was arrested in 2001 and had to wait almost two years before her case came to trial. The publicity she received made it clear that she wanted to plead not guilty and have her say in Court. The delay was supposedly due to the lack of wheelchair facilities at the court in Kirkwall and so it was delayed until the local Sports Centre was available. Yet during my visit to Orkney I saw several venues in Kirkwall that would have provided the same facilities as the Sports Centre and had wheelchair access, including large hotel rooms. During this two-year delay, Mrs Ivol's condition worsened considerably to the point that she was suffering unbearable pain, loss of use of her hands and her eyesight was failing. Clearly she was still deemed fit enough to be taken for trial and that began in June and she was cross-examined. The trial was adjourned after two days to give Mrs Ivol time to rest. It was due to start again in early July. However, although Mrs Ivol has said that she cannot remember seeing a doctor during the next week or so, her doctor stated that she was no longer fit to attend her trial and it was halted by the Sherfiff, who said it could not be restarted. The trial was stopped the day after Mrs Ivol carried out her threat to end her life with paracetamol, although she survived, but the decision to stop the trial had already been made and only the formality was necessary. I am not alone, as a taxpayer, in wondering how much this all cost and how much in wages all those people involved in the arrest, forensics, prosecution and defence, earned in wages. I am not alone is asking why, if Mrs Ivol suddenly been unfit to attend the trial, she was suddenly - and two days AFTER attempting to take her own life - declared fit enough to be transported from Kirkwall hospital to Aberdeen and back, to be questioned by a psychiatrist for half an hour (she was declared sane) , and why she was declared fit enough to be sent home to her isolated cottage in Herston, the next day? The Sheriff said in the court that the case was sad and unfortunate but that it was not a matter of legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis for that was up to the politicians. I have not read any statement from the Scottish authorities other than from the drugs agency which also said that the law was not of their responsibility. When I wrote to Norwich MP Charles Clarke, a member of the Government, he said that as a minister he is unable to comment on this specific case. Otherwise I have heard nothing from the Home Office or anyone else. This is all despite the many names on the on-line petition calling for an explanation for the delay. www.lca-uk.org/petition So my essential questions to you now are: - who is or are responsible for this costly mess? - who ought we to complain to? - how much did this case cost? - is Mrs Ivol now going to be "left alone" to use her cannabis - that is "break the law" - or is she going to be raided and arrested again? - will other people who use cannabis at home to relieve pain and symptoms of serious illnesses be left alone or raided if they become known? - who is responsible for those decisions, who are they accountable to and how are the decisions made? I would appreciate answers to these questions as it is clearly a life-threatening decision on some questions that will effect many people in Scotland and the rest of the UK. If unable to provide answers to the above, could you please tell me precisely to whom you are passing the buck? Alun Buffry Legalise Cannabis Alliance http://www.lca-uk.org NOTES: Sheriff in Orkney, 2 July, at withdrawal of case against Biz "Any question of decriminalisation or legalisation is a matter for the politicians" David Watson, Substance Misuse Division, Scottish Executive 23 June David.Watson2@scotland.gsi.gov.uk "The independence of the Crown as a prosecuting authority is an important constitutional principle, and there is no role for the Justice Minister in taking decisions or intervening in local prosecutions. The decisions taken on this case are purely a matter for the Crown as prosecuting authority. I can advise you that, as part of her duty, the Prosecutor Fiscal was obliged to consider all of the available evidence and to act in light of laws enacted by Parliament and currently in force. Charges of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs are more serious than for possession, and the severity of an offence is an important consideration for the Fiscal when considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The Fiscal also considered Mrs Ivol's fitness to stand trial.Similarly, there is no legislative role for the Justice Minister in arguments concerning legalising or decriminalising cannabis, whether for medicinal or recreational use. The relevant legislation - the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - is reserved to the UK Government. It is not, therefore, in the Executive's remit to amend this law." Charles Clarke MP, only member of the Government yet to respond in his reply to Alun Buffry, LCA National Coordinator, 7 July 2003, via his Secretary Chloe Smith, SMITHCE@parliament.uk "Thank you for your email asking me to support the petition to halt the prosecution of Biz Ivol. This is a matter for the criminal justice system and I am afraid that I am not in a position to intervene. Yours sincerely, Rt Hon Charles Clarke, MP for Norwich South " David Maclean, MP, Cumbria, in his reply to Mark Gibson, LCA Executive FundRaiser "I am afraid that MP's are not allowed to intervene in criminal cases. Once charged with an offence politicians have to keep out of it otherwise they will be accused of corrupting justice. One has to leave it to your friend's solicitor and if she is not successful she must appeal. But as i say MP's are not allowed to intervene." With best wishes, Davis MacLean
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!