Barrister urges cannabis reform drug

[OZ Stoners]

MAGISTRATES and police prosecutors are becoming “increasingly uncomfortable” with medical marijuana patients being hauled before the courts, a leading barrister has warned.

 

View the full article

[MediKat]

Hear, hear

[Matanuska Thunder]

If you are a medical patient, get your paperwork/x-rays in order, they will be your best friend if hauled before the courts.

(not a promise)

[Sir PsychoHashy]

If you are a medical patient, get your paperwork/x-rays in order, they will be your best friend if hauled before the courts.

(not a promise)

 

Unfortunately it still depends on the magistrate you come up against, and the quality of lawyer you can afford.  But, it is my understanding that like it or not, a magistrate has to take evidence produced of medicinal use into account when passing sentence, so in theory you are correct.

[goindeep]

Good article. Need more of these experienced and educated people speaking out.

[louise]

Unfortunately it still depends on the magistrate you come up against, and the quality of lawyer you can afford.  But, it is my understanding that like it or not, a magistrate has to take evidence produced of medicinal use into account when passing sentence, so in theory you are correct.

 

Ok, you are always at the mercy of the prejudices of the magistrate, but I disagree with your comment on representation. If you are prepared to do your own leg work, any brief can hand the paperwork across the bench.

 

Just a note on medical and psychological reports... they go out of date, more than a year or two old and the magistrate wont consider them... so update, regularly.

Edited November 18, 2014 by louise

[Sir PsychoHashy]

Ok, you are always at the mercy of the prejudices of the magistrate, but I disagree with your comment on representation. If you are prepared to do your own leg work, any brief can hand the paperwork across the bench.

 

Just a note on medical and psychological reports... they go out of date, more than a year or two old and the magistrate wont consider them... so update, regularly.

 

What you say is correct Lou, but what I was getting at in terms of quality of representation is about how much influence that can seem to have on magistrates.  I'll start with the caveat that I am in no way expert or well informed about the workings of the law, but simply base this on perceptions from limited experience and anecdotal evidence, so for fucks sake talk to a lawyer rather than listen to me.

 

Assuming someone knows enough about their situation to know what information/evidence needs to be presented, they can hand this across the bench, no problems so far, everyones on a level playing field.  If you are self represented you are unlikely to have enough knowledge to then speak to the magistrate in a way to maximise benefit from that, and in my experience at least magistrates seem to have a tendency to treat unrepresented people with a degree of contempt.  A lazy legal aid lawyer will tend to hand over the brief and follow it up with a basic pro forma type of quick speech.  A good lawyer will try to find a few extra things to chuck in the brief to hand over, and then dribble incessant bullshit to maximise any possible avenue and advantage.  From what I've watched of these processes in action (not a lot of experience), I've seen some dramatic differences in sentencing between people who to my mind did not really deserve to have particularly different outcomes.  That's more the point I was getting at.

 

Now I'm not the dunce of the class, but, I do struggle to understand legislation and how to work with it.  On the occassions I have had to (couple of civil/family court matters and 1 criminal, along with 3 painful modules of commercial law), I have managed to get somewhere with it but still felt a little lost and bewildered.  Some people can deal with this stuff a lot better than me, but others handle it a lot worse.  Add to this the unique world of the courthouse, which in some ways comes across as an exclusive boys club, and self representation can quickly become a bad idea for a lot of people. 

 

That is why I have the perception that quality of representation makes a big difference, but I am more than happy to be proven wrong.  But in terms of getting stuff together for a brief of evidence, as long as you know what you need, I would encourage all to do as much legwork as possible.  Self represented, it is vital, with Legal Aid, also vital as they won't do anything beyond the very minimum, so help yourself, and if you are paying for a good lawyer you  can save yourself a buttload of money by doing this legwork yourself.  I think that's the long version of my previous post

 

A possible example from my case is that the magistrate accepted the medical evidence provided in my brief, and even accepted that canna "would help" with the conditions stated.  However, he then went on to say that it doesn't matter as it's illegal, and that I had to go back to the medical profession that has been completely failing me for near 20 years to find alternative legal treatments.  I believe that a decent lawyer would have backed the reports up with legalese bullshit and dribble that would have forced the magistrate into taking the medicinal usage into higher account, and also would have actively pushed for a section 10 with justification for granting it.  Legal Aid simply said heres stuff from the doctor, give him a fine.

[louise]

I suppose our main point of difference is our opinions of legal aid.

 

I've never met a "lazy" person working legal aid... generally they are overworked and if they have been in the job longer than 6 months... a bit jaded and annoyed by clients with piss ant little charges that want lots of comforting and hand holding.

 

Like other government sponsored services, legal aid is under funded and under staffed. Time and effort must be allocated according to need... if you aren't likely to go to jail as a result of the charges, if you aren't a particularly vulnerable client, if you aren't likely face discrimination in sentencing... you aren't going to get very high up the priority list.

[Sir PsychoHashy]

I suppose our main point of difference is our opinions of legal aid.

 

I've never met a "lazy" person working legal aid... generally they are overworked and if they have been in the job longer than 6 months... a bit jaded and annoyed by clients with piss ant little charges that want lots of comforting and hand holding.

 

Like other government sponsored services, legal aid is under funded and under staffed. Time and effort must be allocated according to need... if you aren't likely to go to jail as a result of the charges, if you aren't a particularly vulnerable client, if you aren't likely face discrimination in sentencing... you aren't going to get very high up the priority list.

 

Not really a difference, lazy was a lazy choice of word on my part.  Jaded and underresourced is a better description, and they basically have their hands tied in terms of not being able to provide a comprehensive effort to most cases, so I don't hold it against them.  It is bound to impact on outcomes for defendants though, which truly sucks, and adds to my perception of inequality within the justice system.