Australian Government is in breach of the UN Charter, Human Rights Con

[Radic]

check for christian lawyers and barrasters

start at the top shelf

dont worrie bout the first few cases you will need to get this matter to the high court of au for any resolution

so u must plead not guilty

they will find you guilty impose some pennalty

you must apeal thru the courts system to get to higher courts

when you get to the high court of au

then you will need a barraster

untill then defiend your self

but seek advice from legal aid

or if you have the $$$$$ get your self a barrasters

still it will take 2y at least before the big showdown

 

we have been studding soverign rights from the bible

correct me if i am wrong

the bible states that if you seek repentance, say sorry and commit to learning not to make the same mistake again you will be forgiven

seen

so to remain in honour

that should close the matter

they dont have any more power over you to make suffer any more

seen

if dey persist you have the right to bill the judge

and he can only pay his bill in gold

well

dis is what rock is currently doing in both qld and nsw courts

they dont like it and they dont know what to do

they are tryin to put rock in dishonour

but he has maintained so far

dey locked him up over easter and tried to make him crack

again he maintained and they had to let him go

he was at the hemp bar when the cops raided pon april fools day

but they didnt arrest him

 

it is interesting indeed how rastas can get off thru the bible

the coptic church has like over 100 referances to cannabis in the bible

[Reverend]

Lightning is this the same case, where they had trouble distinguishing your tomatoes from the marijuana plants?

[mullray]

  Radic said:

check for christian lawyers and barrasters

start at the top shelf

dont worrie bout the first few cases you will need to get this matter to the high court of au for any resolution

so u must plead not guilty

they will find you guilty impose some pennalty

you must apeal thru the courts system to get to higher courts

when you get to the high court of au

then you will need a barraster

untill then defiend your self

but seek advice from legal aid

or if you have the $$$$$ get your self a barrasters

still it will take 2y at least before the big showdown

 

we have been studding soverign rights from the bible

correct me if i am wrong

the bible states that if you seek repentance, say sorry and commit to learning not to make the same mistake again you will be forgiven

seen

so to remain in honour

that should close the matter

they dont have any more power over you to make suffer any more

seen

if dey persist you have the right to bill the judge

and he can only pay his bill in gold

well

dis is what rock is currently doing in both qld and nsw courts

they dont like it and they dont know what to do

they are tryin to put rock in dishonour

but he has maintained so far

dey locked him up over easter and tried to make him crack

again he maintained and they had to let him go

he was at the hemp bar when the cops raided pon april fools day

but they didnt arrest him

 

it is interesting indeed how rastas can get off thru the bible

the coptic church has like over 100 referances to cannabis in the bible

 

Radic, do you know of ANY cases that have been won on the basis of religion. I've heard that in Australia the Rasta defence does not hold unless on minor possession (and this is shaky) so I need actual caselaw to look at.

 

Good advice also, if you are intent on fighting all the way to the High Court you must plead not guilty and keep appealing. I need to warn you here that the High Court often will only look at extremely important cases that may influence findings in lower courts (set precedent) but this case could make it based on religion if one hasn't already and findings are made.

 

Sorry Radic, Australia is a common law country and the bible has no weight in Australian law as such - however, a defence could be waged on the basis of religion but whether this worked is another thing. The important thing to remember is the courts are independent of the state (Particularly the High Court) so politics doesn't come into it - this comes down purely to law and interpretation of law based on similar cases and findings.

 

So Radic, any cases you know of where an Australian has won a case on any drug charge based on religion?? I can read the articles and then look at what could be used as a defence.

[Radic]

ras daniel

i am sorry

i cant recall his full name

it was some time in early to mid 90ts

it was a small amount

i cant recall exactly

less than 2g

i think a small posession charge

Nyah saw him resently

so next time i will find out the details for yah

he won alright

fe real

it was front page news in the northen star

the article did mention that he set a precident

[mullray]

Thanks Radic - I should be able to find it but see if you can get me a full name if poss.

 

Lightening, there is always hope but pm me and let me know basically what you're charged with. A precedent for possession of 2 grams likely cannot be used in a cultivation case but that precedent could be used to argue a case which could then lead to a new precedent providing the High Court hasn't already set a precedent here (based on a similar case). While the High Court are not bound by prior High Court decisions they are highly probable to adhere to earlier findings (rationale dictim or ratio) of earlier findings. I also remember seeing some cases where this argument failed so I'll see why? Then of course, you need to be able to prove you are a member of a recognised religion that supports your argument. And you also need to ask yourself is it worth it?? Going to the High Court will cost you at least $80,000 to stand any chance of winning a case - not to mention the emotional drain that will come with it. Just to submit the paper work to the court will cost in the region of $20,000 and then you start spending real money when a barrister has to go to court and represent you. I'd recommend a QC for the high court - nothing less. If, you don't have a legally strong case don't do it - that's my advice.

 

And mate, you need to run all of your theories past a very good lawyer before you hit the county court - they can advise you on law relatively cheaply and explain what hope you have legally of presenting a case based on what you've been posting (I.e. Don't take my word for it - go and see a lawyer).

 

Radic, mate, I have to say this. What Rock is doing is political, not legal (and good on him for making a political stand). Mark my words, however, from what I've heard he will lose period. I hope I'm proved otherwise but I suspect not. Further to this, the courts will take a dim view of his antics and he's likely to cop a very heavy hit because he wasted the courts time and made a mockery of fair judicial process. The scales of justice just aren't weighted in our favour

[lightning]

To answer the questions that have been asked

 

gills yes same case.

 

radic thanks for the offer to find out that guys name and details it will be a brilliant precident i hope and no we have not and will not plead guilty. and yes the banks do not like the no interest clause of mosaic law and that is why they pushed to have the usury laws repealed which Bracks did here in vic a while back after keating did it in the commonwealth a few years earlier when he deregulated the banks (2 the best of my knowledge someone please correct me if I am wrong)

 

A point from the Bible I find really interesting is that with the common people Jesus was very gentle and loving but with the Pharasies (The political/religious leaders of the day) and the sadduccies (The Lawyers) Jesus was far from gentle he called them amongst other things liars and hypocrites. With the money changers ( The Bankers) he upped the anti and called them thieves and took to them with a whip. So when I am asked what would Jesus do in the situation I often have to think "He made the whip himself"

 

As far as the cost of going to the high court as someone on a health care card charged with an indictable offense I can lodge appeal to the high court for 39$au (at last check of the high court website) plus cost of copying brief for all interested parties which can get expensive but I have cheap printing capability so not too bad.

As somebody with a recognized disorder I cannot be viewed as having had fair trial without representation so they gotta give us a mouth piece, the judge at the cc has confirmed that.

mullray have you read the common law cases and precidence sighted in the other thread? Are they not appropriate in that they show principles of law common to all cases not just drugs. my understanding is that nobody has ever taken the argument of freedom of religion to the high court for drugs and the only religous cases that have been taken have had rulings that confirm the rights I claim not contradict them, such as the moslem father who was done for forcing his daughters to have female circumcission and lost because he was forcing a third party to comply with his beliefs thereby breaching their rights something we have not done. I will dig out the case names for you. also the right for a person to grow their own food on land they have legal control of and choose what they consume predates all modern jurisprudence (I believe it is in the Magna Carta I will check) and is strongly supported in international law. It is the common law right that an adult person of sound mind has the right to determine what does or does not happen to their own body. And what they consume must surely be viewed as a subset of that.

 

I believe that the courts are obliged to make a literal interpretation of the letter of the law and the constitution under the rules of statutory interpretation and as an aspie I cannot view it any other way. that is how my brain is wired, according to the letter of the law we have done nothing criminal and therefore cannot be found guilty. imao

Edited April 6, 2008 by lightning

[mullray]

"I believe that the courts are obliged to make a literal interpretation of the letter of the law and the constitution under the rules of statutory interpretation and as an aspie I cannot view it any other way. that is how my brain is wired, according to the letter of the law we have done nothing criminal and therefore cannot be found guilty. imao"

 

You can take on the constitution through the High Court. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to seeing your case unfold.

[mullray]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...cannabis-626497

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/nov/04/d...hol.humanrights

 

A Rastafarian charged with possessing cannabis with intent to supply has applied to have his case reconsidered under article 9 of the Human Rights Act, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Rasta Brown made the application, believed to be the first of its kind, at Inner London magistrates court on Thursday. Brown, 38, from Stockwell, south London, originally admitted possession of a class B drug with intent to supply in August and was due to be sentenced when the application was made.

Mr Brown's counsel, Rufus D'Cruz, said that although smoking cannabis was not mentioned in the 16 fundamental tenets of Rastafarianism it was considered "an aid to worship, medicine, and as a source of income."

The religion's acceptance of it as a source of income would be the basis of Brown's claim that he was not guilty, Mr D'Cruz said. Under article 9 he did not have to establish that Rastafarianism was a religion.

"The right is for freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is clear from case law that it is a right to be interpreted broadly," he said.

Judge Charles Gibson deferred a decision on whether the not guilty plea was acceptable. The case was adjourned until November 17.

 

He then found him guilty but suggested he could appeal the decision on the basis of article 9 of the Human Rights Act…… No further updates in news but I’ll see if there is anything on the legal databases and whether this was pursued through the UK courts.

 

 

 

There is a very interesting Australian (Vic) case – Hanes v Human Rights Commission where Hanes lost on the basis of launching a defence based on Article 18 – something that you have already mentioned as a possibility. In this case, the plant was not cannabis but salvia divinorum which falls within (banned/illegal) the poisons Act.

 

C basic case outline with findings and ratio dictum (brief) 16 pages

HANES v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and another (2007) 98 ALD 544 (to research case law go to the library and use 98 ALD 544 to locate the full case report. Pages and pages of jibberish so I will stick to briefs and findings and brief (ratio) on why findings were handed down by the court in the way they were.

 

You cited what is below and this is exactly what Hanes cited in his defence on the same grounds that you want to challenge, so this one will be of massive importance in the verdict in your case. I.e. Precedent in Australian case law

 

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gordon J

1, 21 May 2007

— Melbourne

[2007] FCA 751

Judicial review — AD(JR) Act — Dismissal of complaint to Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission — Error of law — Procedural fairness — No evidence — Procedures required by statute — Reasons for decision — Irrelevant consideration — (CTH) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s 5(1)(f).

Anti-Discrimination — Religion — Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission — Complaint about decision of National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee — Decision to list plant in Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons — Dismissal of complaint — Article 18 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — (CTH) Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 ss 11, 20(2)(a), 20(2)©(ii).

The applicant, who described himself as a scientist and practising neo-pagan, complained to the respondent, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) that the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee (the NDPSC) listed a plant called salvia divinorum as a substance under Sch 9 to the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (the Poisons Standard). Once listed, the possession, sale, supply or use of the substance become regulated by force of various state and territory Acts and Regulations concerned with poisons, which adopt the current Poisons Standard. In particular, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), and Regulations made under that Act, authorised medical professionals to possess, use, sell or supply Sch 9 substances, for certain purposes and in certain circumstances. Possession and use of such substances, or of the plant, was not an offence in Victoria because it was not a drug of dependence under the Victorian Act. The applicant claimed that his human rights under Art 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) were infringed by the restriction imposed by the Victorian Act applying Sch 9. The ICCPR is set out in Sch 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) (the HREOC Act). Article 18(1) of the ICCPR provides that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 18(3) provides that freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. After seeking advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (the TGA) of the Federal Department of Health and Ageing, the President of HREOC decided not to continue to inquire into the complaint, on the basis that the decision to list the plant in Sch 9 to the Posisons Standard was not an act or practice inconsistent with or contrary to any human right. While the applicant’s “Nature Philosophy” could be considered a belief, and his use of the plant “to facilitate communion with Nature and the Spirit of the Earth” could be a manifestation of a religion or belief, the NDPSC’s decision to list the plant fell within the exception in Art 18(3), this level of restriction being proportionate to the potential risks associated with the plant. The applicant sought review of HREOC’s decision pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the AD(JR) Act) and claimed that the NDPSC acted for improper purposes in listing the plant.

98 ALD 544 at 545

Held, dismissing the application:

(i) There was no error of law within s 5(1)(f) of the AD(JR) Act, since HREOC asked itself the right question, which was whether it should continue to inquire under s 20(2)(a) of the HREOC Act and whether the NDPSC’s decision was inconsistent with, or contrary to, a human right. It was not for HREOC to review NDPSC’s factual assessment of the risks, and the decision of the NDPSC was not under review.

(ii) HREOC did not deny the applicant procedural fairness.

(iii) The ground of no evidence was not established, since there was evidence before HREOC to support its conclusion in relation to Art 18(3) and it was immaterial that the decision, made by the President of HREOC was not identical with the advice he received from officers within HREOC.

Nothing yet on the Rasta situation and cannot find the case of the data bases which cover all Australian cases but I’m sure its out there somewhere. Will post soon.

 

Another very important case Lightening re religion - again a guilty verdict was upheld. What is important in this case as you will read is the Laws of the commonwealth over rule the laws of religion and rights of religion within law if statute law is created over ruling those rights.

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA, AMBROSE AND DOUGLAS JJ

CA No 263 of 2000

19 February 2001

[2001] QCA 43

 

 

Williams JA

 

The appellant faced charges of offences against the Drugs Misuse Act.

 

The first was that he unlawfully produced cannabis sativa, conduct made an offence by s8 of that Act. The second count was that he unlawfully had possession of cannabis sativa, conduct made an offence by s9 of that Act. And thirdly, that he had in his possession a quantity of equipment used in connection with the commission of the crime of producing a dangerous drug, conduct made an offence by s10 of that Act.

 

Before the jury was sworn, a preliminary point was taken by the appellant, namely that those provisions of the Drugs Misuse Act were invalid because they contravened s116 of the Commonwealth Constitution, or alternatively they were invalid by operation of s109 of the Constitution given the provisions of the Psychotropic Substances Act 1976 (Commonwealth).

 

The appellant dismissed his counsel and argued the point himself before Mr Justice Mackenzie. For reasons which he gave at the time, that learned Judge concluded there was no substance in the submissions of the appellant and ruled that there was no basis upon which the appellant was entitled to a defence on the ground that the statutory provisions in question were invalid.

 

In the light of that ruling the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges. Various material was placed before the Judge on the question of sentence and ultimately the sentence imposed was 180 hours' community service.

 

The appellant has now appealed against his conviction, wishing by the appeal to reagitate the points taken before Justice Mackenzie with respect to the validity of the provisions of the Drugs Misuse Act.

 

The appellant placed in evidence before Justice Mackenzie an extract from the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report conducted in India. That was apparently primarily concerned with social and religious customs in which marijuana and its derivatives were allegedly used.

 

The appellant asserts, and it can be accepted for purposes of the appeal, that he is an adherent of the Hindu religion. In accordance with what he claims are customs and practices of that religion he wants to use marijuana in his home as part of his religious worship.

 

So far as s116 of the Constitution is concerned, he relies in particular on the words found therein, "The Commonwealth shall not make any law ... for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion." That is the provision of the Constitution he submits is infringed by the sections in question of the Drugs Misuse Act.

 

There are in my view two answers to that proposition. Firstly, as was held by the Full Court of South Australia in Grace Bible Church v Reedman (1984) 36 SASR 376, s116 by its terms only regulates the powers of the Commonwealth. It does not prevent a State Parliament from passing a law which might have the effect, inter alia, of prohibiting the free exercise of a religion.

 

But even apart from that, as was pointed out by the High Court in Church of the New Faith v The Commission for Payroll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120 at 135-136, s116 does not necessarily prevent the Commonwealth from passing a law which would have the effect of making a particular aspect of a religious activity contrary to law.

 

See also Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116.

 

In my view, there is no inconsistency between the provisions in question of the Drugs Misuse Act and s116 of the Constitution. I agree with all that Justice Mackenzie said in that regard.

 

The Psychotropic Substances Act 1976 deals with the movement of drugs through the territory of the Commonwealth. I can see no inconsistency between the provisions of that Commonwealth legislation and the provisions in question of the Queensland legislation, the Drugs Misuse Act.

 

In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the appellant has advanced any argument to establish that the sections in question of the Drugs Misuse Act do not create offences which may be dealt with by Courts in Queensland.

 

In all the circumstances, the conviction should stand. In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed.

 

 

Yet another - there are quite a few where Religion and human rights are used by the appellant as a defence - not one of these defences has been held by the courts on trial and on subsequent appeals.

 

WARREN STEPHEN FOSTER v R - BC8300470

Federal Court of Australia — Australian Capital Territory District Registry — General Division

Bowen CJ, McGregor and Lockhart JJ

G68 of 1982

23 March 1983

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against conviction — Whether Ordinance valid — Whether trial Judge misdirected jury — Whether grounds of appeal raised questions of law.

 

(CTH) Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978 s 4(3)

 

 

Bowen CJ, McGregor and Lockhart JJ.

 

Warren Stephen Foster appeals to this court against his conviction by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and a jury on 1 September 1982 of the offence of having a controlled substance, namely cannabis, in his possession on 4 January 1980 for the purpose of supplying it to another person.

 

The offence is created by s 4(3) of the Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978 ("the Ordinance"). After recording a conviction on the jury's verdict of guilty on 1 September 1982, the learned trial Judge adjourned the further hearing of the matter to 1 December 1982 and deferred passing sentence upon the appellant in the meantime. His Honour ordered that the appellant be released upon his own recognizance in the sum of $500 on condition that he appear in court on 1 December. The appellant filed a notice of appeal against his conviction on 22 September 1982 before sentence was passed.

 

The matter has a rather lengthy curial history. This was a retrial of the charge against the appellant. At his first trial, he was convicted and the learned sentencing Judge ordered that he be released on his own recognizance in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour and on condition that he pay to the Commonwealth a penalty of $500 by fortnightly instalments of $10 each. The appellant appealed against that conviction to this court, which was heard on 11 January 1982 by a differently constituted bench.

 

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The judgment is reported in 38 ALR 599. It is from his conviction at the second trial that the appellant appeals. The appellant was unrepresented at both trials, the first appeal and this appeal.

 

The Crown case was basically that on 4 January 1980, a policewoman and five detectives of the drug squad visited the appellant's residence in Narrabundah, where they found cannabis and cannabis seeds in a number of bags in different rooms of the house and 132 plants growing in the rear yard, some under hot-house conditions. The appellant was said to be in possession of about 20 kilograms, 20,058 grams, of cannabis.

 

There was little dispute at the trial about the facts. There was ample evidence that the appellant had cannabis in his possession; indeed he did not dispute it. The principal question in issue was whether he had it in his possession for the purpose of supply to other persons. The evidence against the appellant included that of the police officers who visited his house, found cannabis there and had conversations with him both at the house and later at the police station.

 

No case has been established that the evidence of the conversations was wrongly admitted, and the effect of the conversations was in essence to establish that the cannabis in the possession of the appellant was for supply to other persons.

 

Turning to the specific grounds of appeal relied on by the appellant in this appeal, of which there are twelve in all, it is convenient to consider first ground 4, where the appellant alleges that the trial Judge erred in law in holding that the Ordinance was a law for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, pursuant to the Seat of Government Administration Act 1910.

 

The ordinance concerns poisons and narcotic drugs, including their use, possession and supply. Plainly this is a law for the peace, order and good government of the Territory, pursuant to s 12(1) of the Seat of Government Administration Act 1910.

 

Grounds 7 and 8 may be conveniently considered together. Ground 7 reads that:

 

The Trial Judge erred in law in directing the jury in respect of their duty to convict.

 

Ground 8 :

 

The Trial Judge erred in law in directing the jury that the views of the accused were wrong.

 

There were essentially two submissions made by the appellant falling within the broad ambit of these grounds, namely, first that his Honour directed the jury that if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty, then they should convict him. This direction has not been shown to be in error.

 

Second, it was submitted by the appellant that a direction of the trial Judge to the jury in these terms was erroneous, namely:

 

The accused has had a lot to say to you about his response or how you should view any directions of that nature that I make to you and he has tried to persuade you that you are not bound to convict, that you can return any verdict, if you think that the law is unjust or immoral, that this is victimless crime with which he has been charged, and he does not feel like a criminal. He has not done anything evil or harmful to other people, he has got no guilty state of mind and therefore he is not a criminal and therefore you cannot convict him; well, ladies and gentlemen, that is a completely wrong approach.

 

The legislature has made this an offence. It may be that there are all sorts of movements to have the politicians change the law in the ordinary legislature of the territory and in accordance with the ordinary legislative processes.

 

That is taken from p 260 of the appeal book.

 

Plainly his Honour was not in error in this direction. Ground 9 of the grounds of appeal is that:

 

The Trial Judge erred in law in directing the jury to disregard authoritive (sic) opinion on matters of law.

 

It appears that the appellant cited to his Honour a passage from a work by Karl Oliver Kroner, Law as Fact. It does not appear to the court from a reading of his Honour's charge to the jury that his Honour referred to this work at all, and nor of course was he required to do so. It is for the Judge to instruct the jury on matters of law. What he says about the law and what authorities, if any, he cites are matters for him, provided that he does not stray into impermissible fields. His Honour did not err in this respect.

 

Ground 11 which is relied on by the appellant is that:

 

The Trial Judge erred in law in failing to recognize the Ordinance repugnant to the free practice of religion guaranteed by Australian Constitution.

 

The appellant submitted that such guarantees of religious freedom as are afforded by the Constitution — see s 116 — extend to freedom of expression and practice of morals, ethics or philosophies. The belief that cannabis is a harmless substance to smoke, consume, possess or supply is not a religious belief for the purposes of s 116; there is no substance in this submission.

 

The appellant conducted his own appeal before us. We have examined the appeal book closely to see if there is any substance in any of the grounds of appeal, but we find none. The trial was conducted fairly; indeed, the trial Judge was careful to safeguard the interests of the appellant who conducted his own defence. We see nothing to suggest that the trial miscarried.

 

The real attack made by the appellant against his conviction is expressed in grounds of appeal numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 12, which we need not set out in terms. In substance, the appellant asserts that the law prohibiting the possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply is outdated, wrong and based on erroneous assumptions, namely that cannabis is harmful to human beings and inimical to social order.

 

Different views, of course, are held in our community on the question of the dangers, if any, of cannabis and whether its possession should be legalized, but these are essentially matters for the legislature to consider. The arguments of the appellant raise no question of law.

 

Accordingly, the court would dismiss the appeal and remit the matter to the Supreme Court for the question of sentence to be dealt with.

Order

 

* 1.

The appeal be dismissed.

* 2.

The matter be remitted to the Supreme Court for the question of sentence to be dealt with.

 

Also Lightening, in Australia it is the spirit of the law that is exercised and not the letter of the law so literal interpretation plays second fiddle to what the intent of the law is with regards to subjective interpretation in the courts and the spirit in which that law was enacted into statute law.

 

Look mate, I have 2 years of law under my belt (of a 3 year degree as I already have a degree) and tend to be very good at the research side of things. My area of specialty (passion) is commercial law. Criminal law isn't my thing but as I say I am very well respected for my ability to research case law and when the time comes throw your defence arguments at me and I'll evaluate it on its merits and flaws and give you a legal analysis of your position (this will save you a lot of money I can assure you). My view is you will be found guilty all the way to the High Court and then be found guilty there but this is up to you and all I can advise is you seek very sound legal advice before taking up court time which can backfire if the DPP takes a disliking to you and tries to increase the charges to supply etc. They do this type of thing regularly so there is always a risk when taking on the system.

 

 

Still no sign of the Rasta case but keep in mind that these are all the same based on a defence of Religion and argued human rights.

 

Radic, see if you can get me the defendents full name. That will help immensely. Do you know what state it was in and what court (Fed, High etc?)

Edited April 6, 2008 by mullray

[Radic]

it was at lismore court

cant recall dist????? i tink

i spoke to him the day before

he is staunch rasta

i said to get a breff

he said

strictly jah is i and i breff

 

 

later he told i

he quoted from the bible his rights

and before he could finish

the judge stoped him

he didnt want to hear any more

the judge granted him his relegous freedoms

 

and warned him not to get caught again

 

it was his first offence

and he has not been hassaled since

 

the pic in the paper showed him pon the front steps of the old lismore court house with his hands above his head in joy

i cant recall the head line

as i said i do remember the article saying that a precident had been set

we cut it out and stuck pon the wall for years with a captition we drew on saying

my heads are dis big

[mullray]

No case law around this on every Australian data base so I expect its a petty sessions case where the judge took discretionary action and let him walk due to the minor nature of the case. That's not actually a precedent - just a cool judge going righto mate, on your bike, what are we doing here anyway??? As long as the DPP didn't object it would have passed but couldn't be used as precedent because the finding would be overturned very easily based on what I'm seeing.

 

I'll go through journals and see if theres anything there. Can you give me a rough idea of the year this would have happened as searching case bases is massive without some reliable pointers. There's a couple of million cases on the data bases I have to search but I'll contact the Lismore courts and see if they have a case number. So far all I've found is guilty precedent and no (zero) not guilty precedents and I've looked at everything re Australian cases and human rights/religion appeals.