UK GOVERMENT IN DOCK OVER MARIJUANA!

[REDEYE_420]

EDDIE STRATTON UPDATE: Mar 15 2010, 12:48 PM

EDDIE STRATTON UPDATE: Mar 15 2010, 12:48 PM

Hi all, here is the latest update on Eddie Stratton and his fight against the UK government.

Hi, Ed here with a brief update:

I've dismissed my legal team of solicitor Richard Parry and barrister Ben Cooper. My decision was prompted by basic errors such as deadlines for remitting submissions to the court being missed. Such fundamental failings have fatally undermined my confidence, and so I have had no choice but to regain control of the vehicle to ensure it isn't being driven off a cliff, so to speak!

With my former legal representatives, I also felt that my legal challenge was being moulded into a medical cannabis case, which is not my intention at all. I am not interested in pleading a special case: I told the presiding High Court Judge for England and Wales that a medical defence is 'pathetic' in the context of warped drugs policy which allows cigs and booze to be sold on the understanding that they are potentially lethal, but pretends that the dangers from those other drugs are another category of unacceptability altogether. In the face of this hypocrisy, I refuse to debase myself by crawling to the judiciary for some medical exemption. I choose to step back from the trees and recognise the forest.

I have made representations to the Judge, the prosecutor and the Court to appriase them of my status. My Abuse of Process hearing is scheduled for 26th April, but it may be that the case gets put back due to the failures of my legal team. In any event, I shall be representing myself in court for the foreseeable future.

There has been another potential breakthrough with matters related to my case, as a result of a request under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, the ACMD reported that the classification system is arbitrary and unscientific. They asserted it is 'not fit for purpose'. The then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, promised a review. According to the Guardian, 20th January 2006:

"A complete overhaul of the 30-year-old system for classifying illegal drugs is to follow the decision yesterday by Charles Clarke, the home secretary, to confirm the lower class C status of cannabis. He said he was ordering the review to ensure that decisions were based on their wider harm to society and not just a health assessment of the clinical evidence."

But then John Reid became the Home Secretary and buried this promised review. However, thanks to Casey Hardison's tireless correspondence (freecasey.org), the government has now been ordered to release the information it has thus far refused to bring to light.

Darryl Bickler commented on this

"this will reveal that many years ago govt know that the classification system was unfit for purpose, that Alcohol and tobacco were drugs that needed controlling." And so yet another chink of the government's armour comes away.

Our time will come...

Cheers, Ed

I will post the next update on the 26th of April.

GOOD LUCK EDDIE!

Peace

 

[GMT]

Thanks for the update Red. So is it realy thought that experienced solicitors/barristers are this incompetant, or is it thought that they were nobled and started to underrepresent their client in the interests of their future careers?

It sounds like things are undercontrol and on course though. This is clearly the only chance we have to get this sorted out once and for all. They wont allienate the drinks and tobacco industries who support their elections with so many funds willingly, they must be forced to allow a safer alternative through legal challenges such as this.

 

[REDEYE_420]

UPDATES FROM EDDIES LATEST HEARING...

UPDATES FROM EDDIES LATEST HEARING...

OK so here is the down low on what's happening with Eddies case:

Originally posted by Eddie Stratton:
Yep. Convicted... None of you will want to know me now.

I argued on behalf of sick people and people who want to relax with a spliff. I told the jury that the law is bad, and that sick people like me as well as responsible peaceful adult cannabis smokers were caught in its dragnet. I welcomed the jury's sympathy, and told them that in spite of my admission to the facts of the case - I grew cannabis - I had to plead Not Guilty to preserve my integrity and honour.

I told the jury that this court has no power to rule on a bad law, it can only apply it - the place to argue that the law is bad is the Court of Appeal.

I then told them they had the power to acquit me even in spite of the facts and evidence -

"but I will not be asking you to do that today..."

"Because I want to go to the Court of Appeal, and if acquitted, that is the end of the matter and I am in the same position next week if I choose to grow cannabis."

"So ladies and gentlemen, if you have any sympathy for me, you will convict. Help me out here today."

Jessiedog
Details, ed?
What was the vibe?

From the jury? Difficult to tell. A few of them smiled broadly when I told them they could acquit and then asked them to convict. At least four of them looked like cannabis smokers - but then I am stereotyping aren't I?

Lots of people who don't look like cannabis smokers are smokers. For example Ninorc and Bartman both turned up today in support - you'll be surprised to learn that Bartman is a one-legged Uzbek woman shot-putter, and Ninorc is actually one o them David Icke lizards. Whodda thunk it?!

But the judge was less than friendly today, and after conviction he threatened to send me to jail when I am sentenced on 26th May.

what was written into evidence?
How long was the trial?

Very short - the Abuse of Process hearing was part of the trial, and the evidence, cross examinations and summing up were two hours or so. I didn't dispute the facts to any significant degree.

Was there any commentary from the jury?

I did a fair bit of digging last night on this, and I couldn't find anything about the jury being permited to give reasons. D'you have a reference which says they can do this?

Hi Eddie,

Congratulations on today - it must have been a crazy week for you. I've been following this from the start and it's amazing to see the dedication, intellect, resourcefulness and sheer balls that you have put into this.

It's incredibly hard to put into words how much respect and admiration we all have for you.

Ahh, just lend us a fiver and we'll call it quits

Actually, I'm blown away with your support. Like I have said in this thread repeatedly, if you people here weren't watching from the 'home' end, I'd probably not be on the pitch. Your support is my energy source. It's us, and it couldn't be anything else.

how much 'breathing space' do you have before the appeal is likely to begin?

28 days to serve the claim at the Royal Courts of Justice.

am I right in thinking the judge did not sentence you to any fines/jail because he knows you will be appealing?

Nah, he didn't sentence because I requested the opportunity for pre-sentence reports. These are gonna be done in perhaps ten days, sentencing is on 26th. I've always said I'd go 'not guilty' all the way and mitigate hard on my legitimate medical claim - that's damage limitation which only affects me, so it's okay.

Lake Palmer
Sorry I aint the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to law, I thought you were arguing about the misapplication of the law, as opposed to the law itself? Have I missed something?

No Lake, you're quite right. That is indeed what I argued.

The judge corrected me, saying that cultivation of cannabis is currently unlawful, regardless of how that point of law got onto the statute book. His view is that he must apply the law as it stands, and currently that law stands. His Honour said that no judge agrees with all the laws they must rule upon, indeed some laws may well have been passed after a minister misled the House, or both Houses, but nonetheless, judges have to apply the laws as they stand. I'm not sure if this is correct, but that is what His Honour said. In his court, I must abide by his rules, and his rule was that I am opposing what I feel is a bad law - whether it is primary or secondary legislation it is on the book, so he has to rule on it. The Judge ruled: "Mr Stratton asks me to stay the prosecution as an abuse of process because the application of the law would be unfair to him for the reasons he gave. In my judgment, there are no grounds whatsoever which entitle me to do so." His court hasn't the power to order the remedy I seek, i.e. to stay my trial.

On the other hand, he said that if someone thinks a law is unlawful, they can challenge it at the Court of Appeal, although he did add the caveat: "anything I have said either in this ruling or in the course of submissions should be misinterpreted as my encouraging [Stratton] to take that course; far from it."

If anyone wants to see the ruling of the Judge on the Abuse of Process argument, I'll post it in the next message. If you don't care, just skip right past it...

 

[REDEYE_420]

Here is the official court info from Eddie.....

Here is the official court info from Eddie.....

Snaresbrook Crown Court 28 April 2010
T2009.1314

Regina v Edwin Stratton


Ruling re Abuse of Process





1. The Defendant Mr Edwin Stratton was arraigned on the 14th October 2009 and pleaded Not Guilty to a single count alleging that he cultivated plants of the genus cannabis contrary to section 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On the first day of trial he asked me to stay proceedings as an abuse of process.

2. Ordinarily, such an application should be made before a plea is entered because it is in effect a plea in bar. However, there is nothing to prevent an application being made at a later stage and I note that, when arraigned, Mr Stratton said that he would be applying to stay proceedings as an abuse of process. He has since served a Defence Statement and written notice specifying the nature of his application and setting out in considerable detail the grounds upon which it would be made and also specifying the propositions he would advance together with the authorities relied upon in support.

3. Mr Stratton is not legally represented but is assisted by a McKenzie friend Mr Darryl Bickler who was formerly a solicitor but did not practise in criminal law. I have heard submissions from Mr Stratton and also from Mr Bickler.

4. Mr Bickler referred in his introductory remarks to what he described as an inequality of arms because the Defendant does not have the benefit of legal representation. Further inquiry revealed that he was represented by solicitor and counsel until he elected to dispense with their services. Mr Stratton conceded, with commendable honesty, that he did so because he was aware that no lawyer would be prepared to advance the arguments of law which he wished to pursue.

5. Mr Stratton contends that, on several grounds, the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court. I have heard very full submissions at the end of which Mr Stratton declared that he was satisfied that he had been allowed to fully develop his arguments and graciously commented that he was satisfied that I understood them. He acknowledged that my understanding of them did not, of course, necessarily mean that I would accept them. I intend no discourtesy to Mr Stratton by summarising his arguments for the purpose of this ruling, rather than repeating them extensively.

6. Mr Stratton contends that Secretary of State for the Home Department (the 'Home Secretary') and his predecessors have abused their powers in the administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He argues that the alleged abuse of power is grounded in errors of law, irrationality and unfairness and that, in consequence, the criminal proceedings against him constitute an inequality of treatment in two respects, namely a failure to treat like cases alike (cannabis being treated differently from alcohol and tobacco) and a failure to treat unlike cases differently (a failure to differentiate between those who use controlled drugs "peacefully" and those who do not).

7. He contends that the Home Secretary's administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is ultra vires, contrary to the principles in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [19681 AC 997and Wednesbury unreasonable.

8. Mr Stratton contends that the Home Secretary's errors of law and/or illegal acts and/or irrational decision-making and/or inconsistent approach to various harmful drugs and/or failure to make evidence-based decisions has led to the inequalities referred to above, that the Home Secretary has abused the discretion available to him under the Act and that, by his actions, is abusing the process of the court.

9. He argues that the Home Secretary has misunderstood the provisions of the Act, has failed to give proper effect to the policy of the Act and, by his actions in relation to the subordinate legislation has acted in a manner which is illegal, irrational and unfair. He contends that application of the Act and/or subordinate legislation in these proceedings would violate his liberty, security and property. Further, that the Act as administered by the Home Secretary denies him rights equivalent to those granted to people who use, produce or deal commercially in alcohol and tobacco.

10. In short, Mr Stratton contends that, but for the Government's abuse of power, he would not be before the court charged with a criminal offence and asks me to protect him from that abuse by staying these proceedings.

11. In support of his submissions, Mr Stratton referred me to a number of documents which included:

Drug Classification: making a hash of it, the 5th Report by the House of
Commons Science & Technology Committee Session 2005/06

Command Paper 6941, the Government Reply to the above Report

Pathways to Problems, produced by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs in September 2006

Government Drug Policy: Is it working?, 3rd Report of the Home Affairs Select
Committee

Letter from the Home Secretary to Professor David Nutt, then Chairman of the
Advisory Council (ACMD) on the Misuse of Drugs, requesting his resignation

an article published in the Daily Telegraph concerning Dr Les King's
resignation from the ACMD

Report by Professor David Nutt

Dr Polly Taylor's letter of resignation from the ACMD

Joint letter from Professor David Nutt and Dr Les King to the Home Secretary
Mr Eric Carlin's letter of resignation from the ACMD

An article in the Observer newspaper

Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner ordering the
disclosure of a draft consultation document on a review of the United
Kingdom's drugs classification system.



12. Mr Chinweze, for the Crown, submits (in very brief summary) that the Defendant's arguments are ill-conceived, that the classification of cannabis as a Class B drug as recently as the zs" January last year demonstrates that the Government does keep drug classification under review as required by the Act and that I am bound by the law as enacted by Parliament.

13. I accept of course that the court has a general and inherent power to protect its process from abuse by staying proceedings. What I must consider is whether these proceedings constitute such abuse.

14. The application is unusual in that Mr Stratton does not suggest that the Crown Prosecution Service is attempting to abuse the process of the court. He expressly concedes that both the police and the Prosecution have acted in accordance with the law enacted by Parliament.

15. It is, he contends, the Home Secretary who seeks to abuse the process of the court by his misinterpretation of the provisions of the Act, by his failure to give proper effect to the policy of the Act and by his actions in relation to subordinate legislation which, in Mr Stratton's view are illegal, irrational and unfair.

16. The law which applies in this case is clear, unambiguous and well- established. I regard myself as bound by it.

17. However, in order to properly consider Mr Stratton's submissions, I have carefully examined the way in which the Misuse of Drugs Act operates, the reviewing duty and advisory role of the ACMD and the mechanism by which certain drugs become specified as a 'controlled drug' and are 'classified' under the Act. It is a multi-stage process. Having done so, I am not persuaded that the process has been conducted in any respect improperly. Accordingly, if I was required to determine the issue I would reject Mr Stratton's submission that the Home Secretary has acted unlawfully and that in consequence the relevant law itself is unlawful.

18. Mr Stratton rightly concedes that the charge has been properly laid in accordance with an Act of Parliament and that there is evidence fit to go before the jury. He says that he does not intend to challenge the prosecution evidence; indeed he concedes that, applying the law as enacted, there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict although he intends to urge the jury not to do so.

19. In the alternative, Mr Stratton asks me to stay the prosecution as an abuse of process because the application of the law would be unfair to him for the reasons he gave. In my judgment, there are no grounds whatsoever which entitle me to do so.

20. In written argument, Mr Stratton contended that the legislation is incompatible with his rights under the Human Rights Act. He did not expand upon those propositions in oral submissions. In my judgment, there is no basis whatsoever for a finding of incompatibility. Nor in my judgment is there a case for arguing that the prosecution is contrary to his human rights.

21. Mr Stratton's written arguments were well presented and his oral submissions eloquent but, in my judgment, they were misconceived. I refuse the application.



22. Mr Stratton told me that if convicted he intends to seek leave to appeal; that decision is entirely a matter for him. I have handed down written copies of this ruling so that if he chooses to pursue that course there can be no misunderstanding about what I have said. Neither providing copies of my ruling nor anything I have said either in this ruling or in the course of submissions should be misinterpreted as my encouraging him to take that course; far from it.

23. A comment made more than once by Mr Stratton yesterday leads me to wonder whether Mr Stratton is under the misapprehension that I was encouraging him to plead guilty and then appeal against his conviction. If that is what he believes, then I must correct him. He was clearly under the impression that a plea of guilty would automatically bar him from seeking leave to appeal. My intention was merely to point out that there is no such automatic bar and there are circumstances, albeit rare, in which a defendant may obtain leave to appeal against conviction notwithstanding a guilty plea.

24. On Mr Bickler's advice, he asked whether it was possible for him to enter what Mr Bickler described as a "Conditional Plea." It is not. His choice is between maintaining his Not Guilty plea or changing his plea to Guilty.

 

[FreeMan]

Thanks for keeping us updated Redeye

 

[GHUA]

That guy is awesome! He is a real weed warrior who doesn't just turn into a victim when the police crashes down on him, BIG UPS!

And thanks to redeye for keeping us up to date!

 

[Stonehenge]

Good on you Eddie!

And good luck dude!

 

[REDEYE_420]

That guy is awesome! He is a real weed warrior who doesn't just turn into a victim when the police crashes down on him, BIG UPS!

And thanks to redeye for keeping us up to date!

No probs guys, your welcome.

Yes Eddie is quite a character isn't he. It has been an amazing journey just sat on the outside looking in, imagine how it has been for Eddie. He must have some big balls LOL!

I like your point about how he doesn't just turn into a victim, a lot of people do and because of this a lot of people end up going to jail-simply because they don't know their rights or responsibilities when charged, then they go to court and get given a criminal record without even challenging the charge, sentence or the jail time.

A lot of people also are willing to take a caution for growing cannabis too, why?

Why should you accept a caution for growing cannabis?

Why does my government feel they have the right to make nature against the law?

If there were a lot more people like Eddie actually challenging the system and putting pressure on the court system then maybe the fight would be over sooner than later.

I mean what are they going to do..send all us growers, sellers and tokers to jail? No they're not, there simply aren't enough jail places.

Time for revolution ladies and gentlemen! Wake up and learn your rights.

Peace.

 

[TheBudFather]

Nice 1 RedEye..... Good to see you online again Rudie... Fingers Crossed for Eddie! Peace!

 

[Scrogerman]

Its always been the f'in same, they use the law to their own ends, one rule for one another for another so to speak, there is no equality, you do as they say or face the consequences, lol , we can try anything but at the end of the day they are the law & do as they please, the idioms, they dont care and make it up as they go along, & will continue to do so, we aint got a leg & nor has the guy who refuses the law, poor dude, they will nick him mark my words! i feel making an example of him is on its way!

 

[El Toker]

Its always been the f'in same, they use the law to their own ends, one rule for one another for another so to speak, there is no equality, you do as they say or face the consequences, lol , we can try anything but at the end of the day they are the law & do as they please, the idioms, they dont care and make it up as they go along, & will continue to do so, we aint got a leg & nor has the guy who refuses the law, poor dude, they will nick him mark my words! i feel making an example of him is on its way!

I agree that that is probably what "they" would like to do to him, but I'm not sure that they would get away with it.

Gordon Brown was happy to ignore the advice of his own experts on the classification of cannabis to win him a few more votes from Daily Mail readers. He's not going to be able to do that with the European Court. Defying them is a whole different ball game with real consequences to ignoring them that any PM would find very difficult to sweep under the carpet.

This could lead to a decriminalisation of cannabis and possibly the beginning of an end to prohibition.

On the other hand it could backfire badly and they could prohibit alcohol and tobacco. That would be entertaining, watching them try. The drinkers and smokers could have a turn keeping the police busy and away from us cultivators for a while.

 

[Fingaz2]

Eddie is to be congratulated for giving one of the best defences I have heard. Articulate, reasonable, challenging & respectful to the courts, he is to be commended. I always thought when the spotlight comes your way it is better to get down out of sight & ride the storm. He has challenged my beliefs as well.
Well done, congratulations & good luck.
My 2 cents : Get as much press coverage as you can, publicity will help, now that you are not afraid of it.

 

[Londinium]

Good luck Eddie....One brave,smart,decent guy! ;]

 

[BluePixie]

I hope you don't me posting this redeye...an open letter from Eddie.

Disabled activist implores jury to convict for growing cannabis
by Edwin Stratton, May 6th 2010

I am a disabled cannabis user, with a prescription for a cannabis spray that my Primary Care Trust will not fund. I chose to grow my own and was caught; I subsequently refused a police caution and pleaded Not Guilty. At Snaresbrook Crown Court last week, I told the jury that although my conscience is clear, they should convict me.

It seems a lifetime ago, but I was once a rock musician with a successful international career. In 2001, I developed a sensitive form of Coeliac Disease, an autoimmune condition that began to erode my health. By 2004 I was unable to play music, the pain and nausea had become intolerable and continuous, and I was suffering from malnutrition because I could no longer absorb nutrients. Then the prescription painkillers stopped working.

Cannabis

Fortunately, I discovered the benefits of cannabis. For many thousands of people cannabis is the only medicine that reduces the pain, quells the nausea, stills the tremors, lifts the depression and calms the anxiety. When prescribed pharmaceuticals fail, we have the 'choice' of obeying a blunt and pointless law that demands either our passive agony, or opting for a life worth living by breaking it. This is no choice at all. Who in their right mind would accept the immediate imperative of chronic, untreatable pain against the remote threat of prosecution and conviction? Because so many of us can't derive pain relief through alternative means, and because it is a far, far safer alternative to alcohol, many millions of otherwise law-abiding Britons believe cannabis prohibition to be unfair and unworthy of obedience.

My medical predicament was acknowledged in a letter from the Minister for Policing, Crime and Drugs, Vernon Coaker, to my local MP, Harry Cohen on 21st July 2008:

"...we recognise that there are people like Mr Stratton, with severe pain and debilitating illnesses, who cannot satisfactorily alleviate their symptoms through the use of existing medication... That is why we have said that we would seek Parliament's agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine, for the purposes of relieving pain..."

I followed Mr. Coaker's advice, and in due course my medical need for cannabis was confirmed by my pain consultant. I became one of the few people offered a prescription for cannabis in its liquid form: Sativex, on the proviso that my Primary Care Trust would fund it. But in spite of comprehensive peer-reviewed evidence, my PCT declared that Sativex is not sufficiently proven for pain relief to justify funding.

Cultivation

At first I tried buying cannabis on the street, as a less-risky proposition than growing it. But as a disabled person I felt extremely vulnerable hanging around the streets of East London. It's also the worst of all options because dealer-weed is frequently adulterated. I have bought cannabis laced with silica and glass; I have seen it contaminated with iron filings, and even lead dust. If I am to find relief at all, the only safe solution is to grow my own.

So, in February 2008, I began growing cannabis in my spare room. Three months later, my luck expired when a neighbouring wine bar was firebombed. The conflagration spread, the police burst into my home to evacuate and found my plants. Arrested and bailed, a week later I was offered a police caution, which I refused on principle. To accept a caution would be equally absurd for growing chamomile for headaches.

On 1st October 2008, I was charged with cultivation of cannabis. Eight days later I appeared at the Magistrates' Court where I moved to seek permission in the High Court for a Judicial Review of the decision to stand me for trial, on the grounds of unconscionable behaviour by the government. I asserted that I should not have to be before any court, that I was only in court at all because the Home Secretary had abused his powers by not applying the law fairly and equally to all drug users.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is designed to control 'dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs' proportionate to the evidence of their potential for causing a 'social problem'. A reading of its provisions reveals that the Home Secretary has misunderstood the Act, in that crucially it does not mandate prohibition, but instead provides for proportionate controls from a vast range of policy choices; it is beautifully crafted to implement whichever measures reduce social harms the most effectively.

It is a neutral Act. It does not imply that the Home Secretary can exempt, for example, heroin dealers or cocaine traffickers from controls under the Act. It's neutrality also means it does not grant the Home Secretary the power to exempt similar activities involving the most socially obnoxious drugs of all: alcohol and tobacco.

Comparatively, my private activities involving cannabis were harmless to society compared to identical activities with alcohol and tobacco. This double-standard cannot be enshrined in a neutral Act. Therefore, in my legal submissions, I alleged that successive Home Secretaries have abused their discretionary powers under the Act. I isolated three legal errors, which give rise to a litany of unfairness and irrationality, resulting in an arbitrary drugs regime causing the unequal treatment of people engaged in identical activities with equally or less-harmful drugs than the most popular 'legal highs', alcohol and tobacco. This cannot be lawful.

The unequal treatment I suffer is clear: in 2009, the supermarket behemoth Tesco was fined a meaningless £6000 and denied a liquor license for 28 days at its Blackpool branch, for "persistently selling alcohol to children". While for my private activities which do not involve the supply of addictive, lethal drugs, and which might be said to cause a social solution (pain relief) I face up to 14 years in prison.

Unequal treatment

In 2009 the Home Office confirmed that alcohol and tobacco fall squarely within the remit of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Now that the government has finally admitted that alcohol and tobacco are harmful drugs, the question arises as to why users of safer alternatives are irrationally singled out.

The government's answer came in a 2006 Command Paper, Cm 6941. In spite of its acknowledgment that "alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs", the government defended its provision of civil rights to alcohol and tobacco users on the one hand, versus its criminalisation of users of 'illegal' drugs on the other. The government did not justify this unequal treatment on the grounds of science, or for the protection of society. For the first time ever the government admitted that the inequality of treatment is based on "historical and cultural precedents."

'Historical and cultural precedents' are the stock-in-trade of discrimination, the justification for racism, sexism, homophobia and slavery. This is the 'reason' that smashed the genius of Oscar Wilde. The same 'reason' drove the criminalised homosexual Alan Turing, perhaps our greatest scientist, and a war hero, to depression and suicide. Today, this arbitrary justification continues to destroy the lives of thousands of ordinary people, while permitting identical activities with the most lethal drugs of all.

At the High Court, I claimed that the government's justification for the inequality of treatment I suffer is irrational, unfair and illegal. I argued that it is disproportionately restrictive of my civil rights and freedom of choice to deny access to safer alternatives to alcohol; that it is invasive of my privacy, and abusive of my freedom of thought. I insisted that a fair trial was impossible, and asked the High Court to prohibit my trial.

On July 1st, 2009, the High Court refused me permission for Judicial Review, ruling that there had NOT been an abuse of power even if the government did admit to arbitrarily prohibiting 'illegal' drugs on the grounds of 'historical and cultural precedents', rather than for the protection of society as the law demands. The High Court adjudicated that the law as applied to me but NOT to users of the more-harmful drug alcohol was NOT discriminatory, and therefore was NOT unlawful. I was sent back to the Magistrates' Court, and committed for trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Trial

My trial began on Monday 26th April 2010. On the Tuesday His Honour Judge Tudor Owen ruled that there had been NO abuse of power by the Home Secretary, and even had there been, the Crown Court is not the place to rule that the law is wrong. The judge told me that the place to argue that the law itself is bad is the Court of Appeal.

On the Wednesday, I was tried for cultivating cannabis. I represented myself, but was forbidden from defending on the grounds of medical necessity, that option having been eliminated at the Court of Appeal in 2005. I could not argue an abuse of power; the Judge having ruled that out the day before. I had no defence in law.

There is another obscure option available for people who represent themselves: 'jury nullification'. For three centuries juries have had the power to pass a verdict on whether the law itself is wrong. The jury may acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence or the facts, if they think the law is bad. Judges don't tell juries they have this power, so few jurors know about it, and lawyers are not permitted to mention it.

Jury nullification would seem sensible for the purposes of damage-limitation. But, if the jury were to acquit me, my journey would immediately stop. Two years of groundwork, of developing and refining arguments, of trying to make an impact on drugs policy, would be over. I would be acquitted, but nothing would have changed. I still risk arrest, prosecution and jail if I dare to address my symptoms.

Clearly, acquittal would be an unsatisfactory outcome. I felt that I needed to come out of my trial with more substance than the mere cessation of proceedings. What value is an acquittal if it affects nobody but me, and then only in the short term? Many thousands of people in similar situations to mine can't even stand up, let alone stand up for themselves in Court, so it falls to me to do it for them.

I recalled the Judge's clear instruction that the Court of Appeal is the venue to challenge a bad law, which settled the matter. Per His Honour's assertion, if I wished to take the matter forward to a potentially more meaningful conclusion for all of us, and not just for me, I would have to be convicted. Only then could I go to the Court of Appeal to exercise a Rizla-thin chance, but a chance nonetheless, at challenging a dreadful law.

Witness

I took the stand determined to tell the whole truth. I argued on behalf of sick people and for adults who choose to relax in the evening with a safer drug than a glass of wine. I told the jury I agree with Professor Nutt, the former head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who was sacked for making his scientifically-based opinions public. I admitted my sinful enjoyment of smoking cannabis; only when the pain subsides can I enjoy life. I explained how vicious the law is, how sick people like me, in addition to responsible adults enjoying a cultural choice, are caught in the law's dragnet for private, peaceful activities affecting nobody else. I told them that guilt is as appropriate to me as would be to them if they chose to brew a demijohn of wine; I had no option but to plead Not Guilty on principle. I said that my activities were partly an act of civil disobedience, and reminded the jury of the words of Martin Luther King - that it is our duty to disobey unjust laws.

I repeated the directions of the Judge: that this Court has no power to rule on a bad law, or to make exemptions from it. I then relayed His Honour's assertion that the place to argue that the law itself is bad is the Court of Appeal.

I informed the jury that they have the power to acquit me if they think the law is wrong, even in spite of the facts and the evidence:

"...but I will not be asking you to do that today."

"I want to go to the Court of Appeal, but if I am acquitted, that is the end of the matter, and I will be in the same position next week if I choose to grow cannabis. I will be liable to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, and nothing has changed. My ambition is to challenge this appalling law, therefore I ask that you convict."

"Ladies and gentlemen, if you have any sympathy for me, if you think it is unjust for sick people to be persecuted in this way, you will pass a verdict of guilty. Please help me out here today by convicting me."

Verdict

The jury returned after less than a minute to pass the verdict I had demanded of their consciences: Guilty. I flashed a grateful smile at the honourable twelve, and gave them two thumbs up. Most of the jurors returned my smile, apparently happy to have granted my wish.

Thanks to government intransigence, my conviction is an opportunity to argue my case at the Court of Appeal, in an attempt to help myself and many thousands of people to live a better quality of life.


Sentencing will take place at Snaresbrook Crown Court on May 26th, 2010.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Eddie is to be congratulated for giving one of the best defences I have heard. Articulate, reasonable, challenging & respectful to the courts, he is to be commended. I always thought when the spotlight comes your way it is better to get down out of sight & ride the storm. He has challenged my beliefs as well.
Well done, congratulations & good luck.
My 2 cents : Get as much press coverage as you can, publicity will help, now that you are not afraid of it.

Come out Come out where-ever you are!

We have been taught to fear and fear is the only tool that works for the anti-cannabis folks even when they are not there. We make ourselves afraid.

But yes this UK news is interesting.

The USA created a whole new program when the first cannabis laws were struck down if I remember correctly.. Who was it that said our cannabis tax stamp laws were unconstitutional? Anyway we were required to pay a tax and to grow it we needed a offical tax-stamp but to get a stamp you had to have some cannabis already grown so if you grew it to go get a stamp you were breaking the law and when you came with your cannabis to get the stamp you were arrested and they couldn't give a stamp to a criminal by law.
That is what passed for Cannabis law in the USA for a long time.
The improved system has cannabis at the top of the schedule as most likely to be abused and no medical value.

 

[REDEYE_420]

Nice work BluePixie!

Nice work BluePixie!

I hope you don't me posting this redeye...an open letter from Eddie.

Hi BluePixie , of course I don't mind. Where did you find that gem of information out of curiosity?

If anybody else has come by any information regarding Eddie's case then feel free to post the information up.

Eddie sums up extremely well in that open letter. A lot of very very good points.

I hope after reading this thread a lot more people will take on the system like Eddie?

I love the Martin Luther King quote...

In any civilized society, it is every citizen’s responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen’s responsibility to disobey unjust laws

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK!

Peace.

 

[VerdantGreen]

great stuff from eddie.

 

[chef]

Respect

 

[smokeymacpot]

i hope he gets somewhere with this.

 

[TBL420uk]

Been following his case for a while, even more so now that i am on bail for a possession charge.