|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: What if a policeman wants to smoke cannabis?
Fraser Sampson The Times
Tuesday 10 Feb 2004 A fug of confusion surrounds the reclassification of the drug - among the police and the public IF ANY law is to be effective, it must have clarity, certainty and cohesiveness. Regrettably in the case of the reclassification of cannabis from B to C the most appropriate "c" word is confusion. The confusion among the public about what does and does not constitute a criminal offence after the reclassification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drug Regulations last month has been well documented. To try to clarify the position the Government has launched a UKP1 million advertising campaign to hammer home the point that possessing cannabis remains illegal. At the same time police chiefs have increased their efforts to explain the changed legal position of cannabis to their officers. Of 70,000 offences of illegal drug possession in England and Wales each year, about 75 per cent are for cannabis. The numbers help to explain the rationale behind the move. It is partly to reflect changing social attitudes but also to free police time to concentrate their efforts on the more serious "hard" drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. Some senior officers are predicting a series of legal actions as cannabis users contest decisions to arrest them instead of issuing oral warnings. Police forces are following advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on when users should be arrested, but the wording is sufficiently vague to be interpreted in different ways by different forces. According to a survey reported in The Times, police officers are being encouraged to use their extended discretion to issue the offender with an on-the-spot oral warning although the exceptions to the "presumption against arrest" have caused difficulties for many forces. There is much confusion, for instance, about what is meant by smoking cannabis "in public view", for which a person could be arrested. Does it mean being spotted through a window at home, or on a deserted street at night? In England and Wales the presumption will be that anyone aged 18 or over caught with a small amount will not be arrested but that anyone aged 17 or under will be. However, there is one important area where the impact of the change to the regulations has been overlooked. And it is one that may well dictate the success or otherwise of the initiative. What happens to an off-duty police officer caught in possession of cannabis for his or her personal use? Under present procedures in the Police Code of Conduct he or she faces the prospect of dismissal, a punishment far in excess of that likely to be imposed on members of the public. Is this fair? Is this wise? The code of conduct says that offduty behaviour should be judged against the prevailing standards of the day. This will be the officer's defence. But a police officer caught in this way will have committed an offence. Will chief officers regard possession so liberally when he or she is one of their own? I don't believe that they will and an officer will still face dismissal. Doubtless, chief officers will make the case that anyone found with the drug must have bought it from someone and that person is, by definition, a dealer, however low down the chain. They will argue that involvement with drug dealers means engaging with a much broader and more serious spectrum of criminality, something that is not acceptable in an officer of the law. Reclassification is principally a matter for sentencing, rather like setting the number of points you can get on your licence for speeding. As such it is a political, more than a policing, decision. There is a world of difference between labelling and legalisation. The acid test of just how far this change in the law represents a real change in attitude towards casual drug use will be seen as soon as a police officer is found in possession of a small quantity of cannabis. For some time, police officers have lived with the knowledge that if convicted of a drinkdriving offence they will be dismissed. Only last month ACPO announced a similarly uncompromising approach with officers involved in incidents of domestic violence. But such an inflexible approach does not work. In the case of drink-driving offences off duty, for example, it has resulted in unfairness, inconsistency and protracted litigation. We are acting for a number of police officers who have lost their jobs in this way. In the case of cannabis reclassification, the Government has introduced a change that is, frankly, daft. It should either have been completely decriminalised or the law should have been left as it was. What we have now is a confused public and, worse, more than 45 confused police forces. And that can only spell trouble. The author is a solicitor in the employment group at Walker Morris and a former police superintendent with 18 years' experience. He is also an author and series editor of the Blackstone's Police Manuals, Britain's best-selling police reference books, and an authority on police law.
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!