Elderly set to lose their home

[Tom]

AUSTRALIA'S oldest convicted drug traffickers will lose their home of 50 years under Western Australia's tough proceeds of crime laws after losing a bid to appeal against their convictions.

 

Perth pensioner David William Sidney Davies, 82, and his wife Florence Gladys Davies, 78, were found guilty in WA's District Court last year of possessing cannabis with intent to sell or supply.

 

The pair had said some of the cannabis was used by Mrs Davies to alleviate back pain, but the rest of it was being stored for their son, Tyssul Davies, who did not live with them.

 

WA's Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said today that in accordance with the law, the couple's home would be confiscated after they were refused leave to appeal against their convictions in the High Court.

 

But DPP confiscation manager Christian Porter said that in recognition of the Davies' age and health, any representation that the elderly pair be allowed to live in their home at Carlisle, in Perth's south-east, would be considered.

 

During the trial, the court was told 18.7kg of the illegal drug was found above a false ceiling in the couple's home, a further 300 grams was found in an ice-cream container under their bed, and $7000 cash was found hidden under the driver's side seat of their car.

 

Tyssul Davies was arrested on the same day as his parents and later pleaded guilty to possessing all of the cannabis.

 

Florence and David Davies, who have been married for 58 years, received a two-year suspended sentence after being convicted of possessing the same cannabis with intent to sell or supply.

 

The conviction resulted in them being declared drug traffickers, meaning the state can confiscate their home.

 

Lawyers Laurie Levy and David Grace, QC, sought leave from the High Court to appeal on the grounds that the couple could not be deemed to be in possession of the drugs with intent to supply them to their son, because he already possessed them.

 

An appeal in March in the WA Court of Appeals on the same grounds failed, and the High Court today refused them leave to appeal further.

 

Justice William Gummow and Justice Dyson Heydon, in refusing the application, said there was insufficient prospect of proving the case.

 

Mr Levy said he would contact the DPP within 24 hours to request that the Davies be allowed to remain in their home.

 

"This is again a reason why the Government needs to look at the consequences of this legislation," he said.

 

Author:Denise Cahill

Date:October 26, 2005

Source:dailytelegraph.news.com.au

Copyright:2005 Nationwide News

 

[WantDaChronic]

if they had a decent lawyer they would have been able to keep their house more than likely :thumbdown all he would have had to do is argue that the house was bought 50 years ago and they have been living in it since, there is no possible way the marijuana that was found in their house could have been used in any single way at all to buy the house so no proceeds of crime have helped them in any way to obtain the house...

 

sure they are labled as drug traffickers because of the amount involved, but just because they had drugs in their house shouldnt give the government the right to take the house from the rightfull owners, especially if it can be proven the house was bought legally :thumbdown

[Ozzy420]

That's what i through the law had to show that the house was payed for by proceeds from the cannabis, thay have been living there for agers and to top it off there sun has put his hand up for it and thay still done em for supply how fucked is that...

[Mushaman]

if they had a decent lawyer they would have been able to keep their house more than likely  :thumbdown  all he would have had to do is argue that the house was bought 50 years ago and they have been living in it since, there is no possible way the marijuana that was found in their house could have been used in any single way at all to buy the house so no proceeds of crime have helped them in any way to obtain the house...

 

sure they are labled as drug traffickers because of the amount involved, but just because they had drugs in their house shouldnt give the government the right to take the house from the rightfull owners, especially if it can be proven the house was bought legally  :thumbdown

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree its totally fucked ... amazing that even a stupid lawyer wouldn't have argued that ... maybe its of no concern under the legislation, how you got your possessions .. they just take em all anway coz the law says they can? does anyone know the actual provisions of that bitta nazi law?

[dsyfer]

What a fucked up world we live in, that an old couple can lose their house of 50years over a bloody plant that makes you feel good, the fricken police, courts and politicians need to have a bloody good look in the mirror and work out what the important things in life are.

[Guest Eikel]

Umm Guys, yeah it sucks that old people are going to lose their home, but read the article again.....

 

During the trial, the court was told 18.7kg of the illegal drug was found above a false ceiling in the couple's home, a further 300 grams was found in an ice-cream container under their bed, and $7000 cash was found hidden under the driver's side seat of their car.

 

So forget the fact that almost 3/4 of a pound was found in an ice-cream container, they had 18,700grams in their roof - 18700gm.

 

Now, how the HELL to you justify that was for personal use and not supply - frankly the parents were fucking stupid to let their sun store in their house.

 

Even if you smoked AN OZ A DAY - that is enough weed for more than 2 years.

 

Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who assist commercial dealers - they're one of the reasons the stuff is still illegal. I don't care if you want to deal, but don't expect my sympathy when you get busted - it's a risk you take.

[Frazz]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who assist commercial dealers - they're one of the reasons the stuff is still illegal.

 

Can't see the rationale behind that

 

More like if it was legal there would be little need for commercial dealers

[Guest Eikel]

Can't see the rationale behind that 

 

More like if it was legal there would be little need for commercial dealers

 

If you grow for commercial profit, it's just more justification to the government that only "dealers" are involved in the MJ industry and medical users are just stoner-junkies who are looking for an excuse.

 

If you grow for yourself, and never sell the stuff you can argue in court...

 

a ) I didn't sell any pot. Never made any financial gain (you can't take my house).

b ) I have not caused harm to anyone.

c ) You don't have NINETEEN-KILO sitting in your house, I fail to see how people sympathise with these senior citizens when it's OBVIOUS they were dealing or benefiting from the proceeds of dealing.

 

Perception of the stoner is 99.99999% of the battle we fight for legalization, these people do nothing to make us seem like "normal" citizens to the uneducated mass-populace.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's stupid that they lose a house which they bought 50 years ago, but you shouldn't feel sorry for them - they knew the risks, they did it anyway.

[Guest Eikel]

Sorry, so I don't seem like I'm heartless, there are a few points in the article which indicate the oldies were more than just kind parents helping their drug-dealing son...

 

 

1. 18.7Kg stashed in the roof - that amount alone says this was NOT "personal use".

2. 300gm in an ice-cream container under the bed, convenient if you are selling smaller amounts.

3. $7,000 in CASH at the house - a couple of retiree pensioners would NOT have that much cash just lying around not in a bank.

 

Based offa this I draw the conclusion, that:

 

a ) The couple KNEW the weed was for commercial sale.

b ) It's VERY likely the 300gm was the couples own "selling" stash.

c ) It's VERY likely the $7,000 was either paid to the parents by the son for keeping the stash or earnt by the parents themselves selling the stash.

 

But yes, it's stupid that if the sone confessed and was charged to owning and posessing all the weed for sale that his parents were convicted over the same stash.

[Frazz]

If you grow for commercial profit, it's just more justification to the government that only "dealers" are involved in the MJ industry and medical users are just stoner-junkies who are looking for an excuse.

 

Really Eikel you are sounding more like an apologist for the government than a moderator at OS

 

This idea that commercial dealers are one of the reasons for criminalization of cannabis is complete erroneous mis-information, and you should know better!

 

I have no argument with the oldies foolishness :whistling

Edited October 27, 2005 by Frazzle