New guidelines for drug offences

[STUPPA]

This was on yahoo today and as usual it makes no sense at all .

Street dealers caught with heroin, cocaine or thousands of pounds worth of cannabis could avoid jail under new guidelines for judges which come into force next month.


Offenders who play a lesser role in gangs could be handed community sentences when they come before the courts.
This could include low-level dealers caught with 6kg of cocaine, which could sell for tens of thousands of pounds, and some heroin and cocaine dealers deemed to have played only a minimal role.


So-called drug mules, who bring narcotics into the country and are often exploited by organised criminals, could also get a community sentence if caught with relatively small amounts of class C drugs.




But the Sentencing Council, which sets the guidelines for judges, said those used to bring class A drugs into the UK, a more typical offence, would still face jail, but were likely to serve less time behind bars than at the moment. And offenders who were employed by someone else to import or export drugs regularly for profit would face even tougher sentences, up to the maximum of life in prison.


It is the first time all courts in England and Wales have been given a comprehensive guideline setting out how the role of the offender and the quantity of drugs should influence sentencing.
Under the new guidelines, drug mules, often women forced or tricked into the crime, could face a starting point of six years if deemed to be playing a "lesser role" in bringing in up to 1kg of heroin or cocaine. But this could increase to 11 years if, instead of playing a lesser role, the offender was one of the leading figures, perhaps organising the crime or making substantial profits.
Tougher sentences could also be handed down to key players guilty of producing drugs on a large scale. And for the first time, anyone dealing to children or teenagers under 18 would also face tougher treatment by judges.


Lord Justice Hughes, the council's Deputy Chairman, said: "Drug offending has to be taken seriously. Drug abuse underlies a huge volume of acquisitive and violent crime and dealing can blight communities. Offending and offenders vary widely so we have developed this guideline to ensure there is effective guidance for sentencers and clear information for victims, witnesses and the public on how drug offenders are sentenced."


The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) added that the guidelines offered police "consistent guidance yet still provides the courts with flexibility to deal with each case on its own merits where appropriate".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/street-drug-dealers-may-avoid-jail-000633115.html





Clear as mud then LOL ,and what they say about mules having small amounts of class C just does'nt make sense to me , if you are a mule why would you have a small amount ?.

It looks like they are just tying themselves in knots making it more and more complicated than it already was .

 

[McSnappler]

www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=208384

Been discussing these guidelines since they opened the consultation. It's been dragging on months, way way longer than working out guidelines for any other type of offence has done to date. Looks like we're finally going to find out what they have in store for us..

 

[McSnappler]

Here is the info I just posted in the other thread..

Here we are then, the definitive guidelines for Cultivation offences have been published and will come into effect from 27 February 2012.. There is way more to be learnt by reading the published guidelines in full, the response to the consultation, and other documents released today, but here is the info that will interest most of us..

The offence roles and categories

The sentencing guidelines for the above roles and categories

Note about a guilty plea: If you plead guilty, the magistrates will then apply the standard sentence reduction, which in most cases is 30% if you entered your guilty plea at time of arrest, sliding to less and less, the later you leave it before you plead guilty.

 

[RudeDog]

Doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Is SIX kilo of coke low level dealing? Seems you'll get less penalty for charlie than herb.

Why would a 'mule' be smuggling small amounts of Class C drugs?

What the fuck are Class C drugs and is there any money in small amounts of them?

Is coffee Class C?

Madness....I feel our country is being run by clowns folks. I don't like clowns.

 

[McSnappler]

The Yahoo article and others I've read are complete bollocks, if you want to understand it all you're going to need to read the whole PDF yourself, which you can obtain from the Sentencing Council website.

P.S. I'm not saying it makes much more sense once you've read it all!

 

[Easy e]

....

 

[VerdantGreen]

this was in the guardian article and imo is a small bit significant step forward

The sentencing council also spells out explicitly, for the first time, that the medical use of cannabis for serious conditions should be recognised by the courts as a mitigating factor when sentencing offenders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/24/drug-lighter-sentences-social-dealers

 

[McSnappler]

Well, they kind of do and don't say that VG. I recommend reading the additional document the SC have published, the response to the consultation/consultees.

I quote..

Q7 Should “medical evidence that a drug is used to help with a medical condition” be included as a mitigating factor for possession offences?

The consultation asked specifically whether ‘medical evidence that a drug is used to help with a medical condition’ should be included as a mitigating factor at step 2 for possession offences. Most respondents were in favour of its inclusion: 63 per cent of respondents welcomed the proposal but the vast majority of these were only in favour of its inclusion for cannabis.

It was noted by several consultees, that, “evidence that use was to help cope with a medical condition,” is currently included in the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines as a mitigating factor for class B and C drugs. Some consultees, including the Prison Reform Trust, suggested that if it were omitted from the definitive guideline, this could lead to more severe sentencing in some cases than current practice. Indeed, sentencers might assume that non-inclusion of this factor at step 2 is to indicate that it should not mitigate the offence. Other respondents suggested that sentencers would continue to recognise its mitigation whether listed or not as the step 2 factors are non-exhaustive.

However, a number of consultees submitted that its inclusion could result in inconsistent sentencing and delays in proceedings. Whilst many agreed that the court ought to be able to take account of bona fide medical conditions at step 2, there was concern that defendants may not be able to obtain the required evidence on a consistent basis. Some consultees, including the CPS and ACPO, felt that its inclusion would open the door to spurious defences, resulting in a ‘battle of the experts’ and a huge cost in both time and money to the court. There was also concern that its inclusion could be perceived as undermining the law on controlled substances. Others, including the Law Society, commented that including it as a specific mitigating factor could perhaps over-emphasise its significance.

Conversely, numerous other consultees, including the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), the Magistrates Association and Drugscope, referred to evidence of the medical benefits that the active ingredients of cannabis have in the treatment of conditions associated with Multiple Sclerosis and some forms of cancer. It was suggested that if the offender can bring to court evidence that they have been attempting to obtain the drug by legal means and written evidence from their medical practitioner that the use of the drug can alleviate the symptoms of their illness, then this should be a convincing mitigating factor. Some respondents, including the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and the Council of Circuit Judges, were keen that the mitigation should also include cases where the offender believes that cannabis is helping with his or her medical condition but in reality it is having no or only a placebo effect.

The Council agrees that where cannabis is used to help with a diagnosed medical condition this should serve as a mitigating factor. The following wording will be included at step 2 in the definitive guideline: “offender is using cannabis to help with a diagnosed medical condition”.

 

[VerdantGreen]

yeah they go round the houses dont they
but
“offender is using cannabis to help with a diagnosed medical condition”.

is pretty definitive in the end.

VG

 

[roll it large]

all gobbledegoop to me it all boils down to the judge at the end of the day,catch him/her on a bad day and your screwed just like the pensioner

peace

 

[McSnappler]

“offender is using cannabis to help with a diagnosed medical condition”.

is pretty definitive in the end.

You'd think so, but the preceding paragraph throws up just a few of the questions which remain unanswered. Which medical conditions will be taken into account? Which will not? Will the courts, as both the ACMD and CCJ suggested, take into account defendants who believe they are using cannabis for medical reasons when in fact it's probably doing little for their condition, or will this mitigation be discounted? Will everyone be able to get a reduction in sentence for pre-diagnosed medical conditions, or will that be reserved for those of us who can afford expensive legal representation, or have access to expert witness testimony?

The only thing I'd say it clears up, right now, is that you better get your condition well and truly on the record with your GP, sooner rather than later.

 

[mr.brunch]

stick to 9 plants or less, and make sure your doctor knows about your medical use- at least there will be a record of this... courts love paperwork and documents full of confusing language. It means that the masses wont bother reading it and they are in control. Like the way everything used to be written in latin, so that only those rich enough could afford to learn & read it

 

[VerdantGreen]

so the 9 plants or less thing - is there any distinction between cuttings, baby plants and flowering plants or is it just 9 plants total whatever they are doing ????

 

[mellofello]

Well I haven't read through this all yet but this whole plant numbers thing is a worry to me. From what I understand before this there were no guidlines based upon plant numbers and as we all know plant numbers are a stupid way of judging the quantity being produced.

VG from my own recent experience they did take into account that some were only small plants others ready to go as it were. They classed small plants that had not been rooted long and all my unrooted clones as "small plants" with no distinction between those with roots and those without.

I got a caution for personal growing with 90 odd plants that they found. Seems under these new guidlines I would have been screwed.

Like I said I haven't read through all this yet but seems to me that its gonna make things worse for us and better for those selling coke and heroin which makes no sense to me

peace

mello

 

[mr.brunch]

Well I haven't read through this all yet but this whole plant numbers thing is a worry to me. From what I understand before this there were no guidlines based upon plant numbers and as we all know plant numbers are a stupid way of judging the quantity being produced.

VG from my own recent experience they did take into account that some were only small plants others ready to go as it were. They classed small plants that had not been rooted long and all my unrooted clones as "small plants" with no distinction between those with roots and those without.

I got a caution for personal growing with 90 odd plants that they found. Seems under these new guidlines I would have been screwed.

Like I said I haven't read through all this yet but seems to me that its gonna make things worse for us and better for those selling coke and heroin which makes no sense to me

peace

mello

i hear that!
i got 6 month discharge for 75 in year 2000
best to have the 9 or less now imo
the sooner they separate weed from fuckin pharmaceuticals the better. the only reason there is any 'gateway' link at all is because they lump everyone together as criminals, so we tend to follow the same circles

 

[theherbalizor]

Problem also lies in having a dedicated mom room and flower room. Even if you only have 9 plants total that will see you as a factory.

And are these not only maistrate guidelines? As I know if ever the door knocked I'll be in front of a jury. Last time they nicked me they tried to put me to crown as I had a quater of weed, yes 7 grams. But previous so the judge said he didn't have sentencing powers that were strong enough.

 

[guest194]

Got a friend who got caught a couple of months ago with over 70 plants he got a community order, I know him personally and followed his case so know it to be true. The guide lines they publish and reality seem like two different things.

 

[roll it large]

not enough space in jail for us all

peace

 

[mitch_connor]

I don't like the fact it seems like a postcode lottery at the moment.

I've read of people just getting a caution in some cases where others are really turned over for not too dissamilar setup's/numbers.

 

[RudeDog]

not enough space in jail for us all

peace

Yep...full of rioters.

I wonder how many home grows are happening in the UK at the moment.

There doesn't seem to be a shortage of weed just a shortage of good high grade ganja.