Go back to the Index

THE NATIONAL LAWS WHICH BAN CANNABIS AND TURN US INTO CRIMINALS, ARE CONTRARY TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ANY DEFENDANT AND ANY JURY RECOGNISE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACT OF POSSESSION, CULTIVATION ETC, AND THE OFFENCE OF POSSESSION, CULTIVATION ETC. For example, police, customs, forensic scientists and licensed researchers are not prosecuted - they have licences and permission as part of their jobs. YOU have the RIGHT to possess or cultivate cannabis under the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights

Statement of .........................................................

of .......................................................................................................................................

on this day ...................................................

In answer to the charges of possession of unlawful cannabis.

I admit that I was in possession of cannabis at the place and time stated in the charges. I deny that my possession of cannabis constitutes a criminal offence

It is my belief that the use of cannabis is of such benefit to me, that it is a NECESSITY in my life.

My possession and use of cannabis produces no victims and bears no malice to any individual or to society. The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act has no legitimate part in controlling my beliefs, and a law that attempts to prevent me from practising my belief is contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention.

I cite Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
1 "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".

2 "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morale, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

The cultivation use and supply of cannabis does not interfere with the rights of others and does not threaten the interests of public safety, public order, health or morale. On the contrary, since many people use cannabis to help maintain or improve their health, relieve stress, or ease their suffering, the prohibition of cannabis has a detrimental effect on health.

A law which elects to punish people for choice of lifestyle does nothing in the interests of public safety or public order. In this case the use of cannabis has no victims; a law which arrests and punishes subjects for crimes without victims, including many sick and well medical users of cannabis, is not in the interests of public morale.

In my possession of cannabis I have the Right to own and use it under the Human Rights and Freedoms granted to me by the Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Law has NO RIGHT to prevent me from practising my harmless beliefs.

I cite Article 17;of the European Convention of Human Rights.

"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, Group or Person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in this Convention".

To prosecute me for the possession of cannabis will be a MIS-APPLICATION of the law and an offence under these Treaties, ratified and endorsed by the British Government, and any State employee who participates in such a prosecution could be subject to the charge of malfeasance. International Law and Human Rights unequivocally supersede national law such as the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Signed........................................................ ...........................................................................

Witnessed by: .............................................................................................................

ARGUMENT


Laws are made to PROTECT:
to protect society, the individual, public order, morality and social wellbeing
The law should step in to protect the VICTIMS of CRIME and where necessary punish the offender(s).
Whilst clearly there is a need to enforce laws, it has also been said that "The Law is an Ass"
Although it has been argued that the Jury in any trial has the Right and Duty to judge the law itself, instructions from learned people in the Court will instruct the jury that they must reach their verdict based only upon the evidence presented in court and the letter of the law.
Whilst this may or may not be true - it is arguable - there can be little doubt that the jury is, by RIGHT and by DUTY, bound to consider the APPLICATION of the law.
This has been confirmed by Lucy Beazley, Customer Service Unit, The Court Service, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT, 9 December 1998. Ms Beazley wrote "...for the jury ... to apply the law as they see fit."
If the jury see that the law is being wrongly applied then it is their duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
Examples of the mis-application of the law are:

The argument follows that there is no malice and no victim in any case involving the possession or personal cultivation of cannabis; in addition there may or may not be necessity.
It simply does not make sense to say "The Law is the Law" and convict regardless of the FACT that the personal cultivation and / or possession of cannabis has NO VICTIM, poses NO THREAT to any individual, group or society as a whole in ANY WAY AT ALL. To convict a person in such circumstances - of a law made by, and enforced by, the State and its employees, without regard to conscience, is to play into the hands of possible tyrants of the future, who would then make and enforce laws willy-nilly, without consideration of JUSTICE.
Justice is in the hands of the Jury
Nor does the DUTY of the jury stay there; for to convict unjustly would be to participate in the State's VIOLATION of OUR HUMAN RIGHTS.
In all cases of personal possession or cultivation of cannabis a verdict of NOT GUILTY should be returned by all jurors who will stand up for justice.
Any juror who fears the judge is already a victim of the court.

The FCDA Europe publication, The Report, shows why the law which bans cannabis is itself illegal. Also included in The Report is an article on the Rights of Jurors to return a Not Guilty verdict if they feel that a law is itself unjust. Recently purchased by the House of Lords, Justice Department and Scottish Home Office, and endorsed by Judges, Doctors, Criminologists and other academics, The Report offers a powerful defence as well as mitigating circumstances.

MEDICAL DEFENCES?

Several articles in the press have reported successful defences for possession or cultivation on the grounds of medical necessity. This means going NOT GUILTY and explaining the need to the jury, preferably with a doctor's testimony. This is different to going guilty and begging for mercy. A genuinely ill person should not have to beg!

COLIN DAVIES, medical user and supplier cleared:

Here are some more reports