Nimbin man brings marijuana to court... again

[iamnotacop]

Interesting, I know someone who was was done a few years back in Tasmania, and on all of the forms they recieved from them (in return for his lights, plants and setup.. how nice...) they referred to it as Indian Hemp

 

Tasmanian Poisons Act of 1971

 

3. Interpretation

 

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears –

 

......................

 

"Indian hemp" means –

 

<a> any plant or part of a plant of the genus cannabis;

 

<b> the resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from any plant or part of a plant of the genus cannabis; or

 

<c> any preparation containing any such resin –

 

by whatever name that plant, part, resin, or preparation may be called, and includes the achene or seed of any such plant but does not include any fibre of any such plant from which the resin has been extracted;

 

 

 

I haven't read the Queesnland acts for obvious reasons, but there may be a clause in there somewhere, or one of the other acts. (In Tasmania one must read the Poisons Act 1971, The Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, Sentencing Laws Act 1997, and also the Criminal Justice Mental Impairment act of 1999 can't hurt).

 

 

I agree with Mr Till, he believe that he has a right to question the term "dangerous drug", but going about it the way he did it, unfortunately, won't help his case. Maybe he should have got a lawyer to argue the case for him. But maybe he is like me and hates lawyers as much as the cops/prosecutors/judges/probation officers and anyone else involved in the Criminal Justice System.

Edited November 27, 2007 by iamnotacop

[grok]

thats a good point about cannabis sativa vs cannabis indica....growing a pure indica strand in Qld. like Northern Lights might be a legal loophole we can jump through....just as the definintion 'dangerous drug' could be played since there is not much actual evidence that cannabis is a dangerous drug.

 

PETER TILL as a legally defined corporation as opposed to a living breathing human is also true. that is why government correspondence uses capital letters when they write your name!!...for more information on this check out the writings of David Icke.

 

i hope you continue to defend your soverignity and your self given right to smoke da wacky baccy,grow it,sell it,make rope or paper with it or any of a number of other uses this awesome plant can be used for.

 

as for your contract with the Canadian Transport Minister....did he agree to your proposed contract in writing?....cause my understanding of a contract is that it requires words on papers with at least two signatures....

 

anyhoo have fun with it all...dont take it too seriously..thats what THEY want!!...drop in again in a few months and let us know how it continues to go...some of us admire you...some think you're approach is ineffecutal...but all of us have an interest in knowing what you do and why you do it when you 'stand up and take one for the team' so to speak...

 

till next time Peter..

[iamnotacop]

thats a good point about cannabis sativa vs cannabis indica....growing a pure indica strand in Qld. like Northern Lights might be a legal loophole we can jump through....

 

Just make sure

- that you never use the term "Marijuana"

- always refer to it as "Cannabis Indica" (especially to cops)

- keep the seed packets identifying it as "Cannabis Indica" for proof

- do a course at the Queensland Herbarium, to gain qualifications

- find someone who is more qualified to find the difference between Sativa and Indica, who is willing to testify on your behalf

 

 

example

 

DAVID CAMERON MOORE

 

v.

 

JOHN FREEMARIJUANA

 

Appellant

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

 

Judgment Delivered 18 October, 1996

 

The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of having possession of a dangerous drug namely cannabis sativa. The grounds of appeal argued were that the Magistrate's decision was unsafe because the Crown did not call the analyst who certified the plant as cannabis sativa, that the Magistrate erred in rejecting the appellant's argument concerning the mental aspect of possession and that he erred in concluding that the appellant was "mentally in possession of the plant".

 

At the hearing a certificate under s.56 of the Drugs Misuse Act describing the plant as cannabis sativa was tendered. It was signed by a Senior Constable of Police stationed at the Scientific Section, who, amongst other things had completed a Bachelor of Science Degree, and a three month course at the Queensland Herbarium and had been appointed an analyst for the purposes of the Drugs Misuse Act. Upon its being admitted into evidence a certificate is evidence of the identity of the dangerous drug in question. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is conclusive evidence of that matter. Although the point need not be formally decided in this case, the "evidence" referred to seems plainly enough evidence which is at least sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the correctness of the certificate.

 

The appellant argued that the prosecution should have called the analyst as part of its case. Before the Magistrate the appellant relied on R. v. Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563. Nothing in that decision obliged the prosecutor to call the analyst. It is also authority for the proposition that a decision of the prosecutor not to call a particular person as a witness will only constitute a ground for setting aside a conviction if, when viewed against the conduct of the trial as a whole, it is seen to give rise to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant called the analyst and questioned him about the identification of the plant. The point he wished to establish was that cannabis sativa and cannabis indica were different species of plants. The record indicates that the analyst was aware of the point which the appellant wished to make but said definitely both in examination-in-chief and cross-examination that there was only one species of cannabis, cannabis sativa. There was therefore evidence both in the certificate and from the analyst that the plant to which the charge related was cannabis sativa.

 

The appellant who has no botanical or other scientific qualifications but claimed to be an expert on cannabis sativa on the basis of having read and written on the subject, gave evidence that he believed, although he could not be certain, that the plant was cannabis indica , not cannabis sativa.

 

The Magistrate found as facts that during the course of a public rally the plant seized from the appellant was taken from a bag, that the appellant said that he was going to perform an act of civil disobedience, that he referred to the plant as a "lovely marihuana plant" and elected to carry it after making that statement. Although it is not the subject of a specific finding in the reasons, there is uncontradicted evidence that after the appellant made his statements he and a number of other persons marched to police headquarters where the plant was seized from the appellant.

 

After referring to events at the rally the Magistrate said of the appellant:

 

"His evidence that he did not know whether the substance was sativa or indica in my opinion is fanciful and not to be believed."

 

There was therefore no evidence acceptable to the Magistrate to the contrary of the statement in the analyst's certificate and the analyst's oral evidence that the plant was cannabis sativa.

 

The finding also disposes of the second ground of appeal which was, in effect, that he believed that he was in possession of a plant of a kind which was not prohibited by the Drugs Misuse Act. The ground could not succeed unless there was some acceptable basis in the evidence that the appellant may have had a reasonable belief that the plant was not cannabis sativa. It is not to be assumed that the existence of such a belief would necessarily have been relevant to the question of guilt. The meaning of "cannabis sativa" in the Second Schedule of the Act was not argued and in view of the Magistrate's findings it was unnecessary to do so.

 

 

See, he tried but he didn't try hard enough. Be convinced of your statements, get/keep proof and stick it up the bastards.

[iamnotacop]

This extract is taken from the High Court, but it is kind of the other way around. The customs act used the term Cannabis and the accused said it was not Cannabis it was Cannabis Sativa. Either way it didn't help her, but because it is reversed one could argue that the only law in Queensland is against the Genus Cannabis species Sativa. Buggered if I know, after reading through al that crap my brain is fried and I am confused as hell. Maybe someone with a bigger brain can read through it all and see if it has any relavence to the point at hand.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp...nnabis%20indica

14. Meaning of "plant of genus Cannabis sativa". The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines genus (in its Zoological and Botanical uses) as

"A classification group comprehending (one or) a number of species possessing certain common structural features distinct from those of any other group. The genus ranks next under the family of sub-family and above the species; it is sometimes divided into sub-genera. The generic and specific names (always in Latin or considered as Latin) together form the scientific proper name of an animal or plant, the generic name standing first and being written with an initial capital."

This is consistent with the language of taxonomy in the classification of living organisms. The convention that a genus is given a name which must be a single (or hyphenated) word is embodied in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Eleventh International Botanical Conference Seattle, August 1969) arts. 20 and 21). (at p50)

 

15. There is a strong presumption that Parliament, when it uses scientific terms on a technical subject uses them correctly. Parliament should not be taken to have made a legislative statement that there is a genus known as Cannabis sativa when the whole botanical world and the educated community are aware that there is no genus by that name or a statement that excluded the possibility of another species being discovered or of a new species evolving (with or without human intervention). It follows that the definition refers to plant of the genus Cannabis species sativa. The word "sativa" is there and cannot be ignored. Sativa is the name of a species; genus Cannabis sativa means the same as Cannabis sativa or Cannabis species sativa or genus Cannabis species sativa. The respondent relied on the omission of the word species before sativa. Apart from the obvious answer that it would be superfluous (as was the use of "genus" before "Cannabis"), it is common in the law to refer to a sub-genus or species by reference to genus. For example section 4 (1) means sub-section (1) of section 4. It does not mean everything in section 4; rather it is a section 4 limited to sub-section (1). (at p50)

 

16. At the least, the meaning of the expression is ambiguous. The traditional rule that a criminal statute, if ambiguous, should be construed strictly, that is, in favour of the accused, was adopted originally to save people from exceedingly harsh penalties but is now based on notions of fair play. Holmes J.'s statement that,

"Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed". (McBoyle v. United States (1930) 283 US 25, at p 27 (75 Law Ed 816, at p 818) ).

was cited in United States v. Standard Oil Co. which continued (1966) 384 US 224, at p 236 (16 Law Ed 2d 492, at p 500) :

"The policy thus expressed is based primarily on a notion of fair play: in a civilized state the least that can be expected of government is that it express its rules in language all can reasonably be expected to understand. Moreover, this requirement of clear expression is essential in a practical sense to confine the discretion of prosecuting authorities".

If this rule were applied, the appeal would have to be upheld. A strict construction of the Act in favour of the accused restricts the meaning of "genus Cannabis sativa" to genus Cannabis species sativa.

Edited November 27, 2007 by iamnotacop

[Shang Tsung]

for Allah's sake, they should just legalize it medicinally..

[sunnycoaststoner]

Author: Christine Flatley

Date: September 28, 2007 03:54pm

Source: News.com.au

Copyright: © 2007 Davies Brothers Pty Limited

 

 

Nimbin man allegedly carried drugs during drug trial

 

 

sorry the quote was from the start of this thread and not the latest headline.

 

hey crew, well tills at it again, turning up to court with yet another plant to be charged with. the cameras were on him walking into the court with the 90 cm plant, the guards put it thru the xray machine and then wouldnt give it back to him. instead calling the police, who turned up only minutes later to issue him with another charge of possessing a dangerous drug. till and his partner walked free only to return next month. i wonder if he will try it again.?