Cannabis to go on Trial

Cannabis to go on trial
After more than thirty years since enactment, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will face a major challenge when the well known cannabis dactivist, Dakta Green, puts cannabis on trial.
“For the first time since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 came into force, cannabis will be subjected to the scrutiny of the court.
My stay of proceedings application will be based on my interpretation of section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

9. Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment

Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.

I read this section as follows: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.

My argument has two main thrusts.

1. The treatment I have received at the hands of some Police and/or the Department of Justice since May 2006 amounts to disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
This has included, among other things, being charged indictably with serious cannabis related offences resulting in withdrawal of charges a year later due to “no evidence”. Assault by Police, false accusations, arrest warrants being issued without cause, harassment by some Police officers.

2. If convicted of a charge of possession for supply, the Court has available to it a sentence of 8 years imprisonment. Whilst the quantities involved in my case would clearly not attract the maximum sentence, nonetheless, it is a sentence available to the Court. The question then is whether this potential sentence amounts to cruel punishment for what I contend is a benign plant.

The crux of this argument will require me to prove inter alia cannabis is a relatively safe plant for adults to consume. At the very least I must demonstrate the draconian penalties available to the Court for cannabis related charges amount to disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.”

This is a major opportunity in the battle to legalise cannabis.

People in our culture who wish to volunteer to help in this unique opportunity or wish to be better informed about cannabis law reform generally, should attend our

PUBLIC MEETING –

When: Wednesday 16th September 2009 at 8pm.
Where: The Daktory, 80 Delta Avenue, New Lynn.

Further information –

http://thedaktory.org.nz/

dakta_green@thedaktory.org.nz
09 948 1049
027 337 1910
Dakta Green

The following is an exact copy of the Minute of Judge Field as supplied to Dakta Green.

_____________________________________________________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT CRI-2007-004-016858
AT AUCKLAND

THE QUEEN

V

DAKTAR (sic) GREEN (AKA) KENNETH CHRISTOPHER MORGAN

Date of Ruling: 28 August 2009
Appearances: B Northwood for the Crown
Accused appears in person supported by T Simmonds as
Amicus Curiae
_____________________________________________________________
MINUTE OF JUDGE C J FIELD
_____________________________________________________________

[1] The hearing scheduled for today was to address pre-trial issues, preferably before
the trial started on the 31st. There are two principal matters still outstanding. One is the
validity of the search warrant which will be the subject of a challenge, and more significantly
an application to adjourn the trial so that Mr Green can bring evidence in support of a
stay application based principally, although not entirely, on s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act.

[2] The bases (sic) of the application will include a suggestion that Mr Green has already
suffered “punishment” as a result of his dealings with the police from 2007, down to the present
time on this and unrelated matters. He has spent considerable periods on bail and some time
in custody as a result of the various prosecutions brought against him.

[3] He is exposed to a maximum potential penalty of eight years’ imprisonment in respect
of these new charges, a potential penalty which he asserts is completely out of proportion
to the gravity of the offending with which he is charged. Mr Green is an activist in the
cannabis cause, and has strongly held, and I accept sincerely held, views about the use of
cannabis and its legalisation.

[4] He asserts that the benign influence of this substance is such that is should not be a
criminal offence and the law, as it presently stands, is providing for punishment far in excess
of that warranted by the “offending” itself.

[5] He seeks to call evidence in support of this assertion and proposes to bring expert
evidence in some form or other from places as far afield as the United States. Essentially,
his argument is that there can come a time when the Court should depart from precedent
and effectively assert that the cannabis laws should no longer have the validity that they
had in previous years. I am attempting to paraphrase the argument without necessarily
repeating it word for word.

[6] I have given a preliminary indication of the view the Court is likely to take, That is,
that it is not the function of this Court to interfere with the workings of Parliament.
The law is, after all, as it stands and that such submissions as he wishes to make might
be better directed to mitigation of penalty if a jury ultimately were to find these charges proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

[7] However, he is entitled to bring the application, properly supported by such evidence
as he can muster, and to have it considered by the Court. Ordinarily a delay of this kind
would be inexcusable but he has taken over the conduct of his own defence only in recent
times and the Court has had the valuable assistance of Mr Simmonds as Amicus Curiae.
There is a suggestion of a McKenzie friend entering these proceedings at some point although
that has not yet happened.
The short point is that Mr Green is entitled to make the application, he is entitled to have it
supported by evidence or more detailed submissions than he is able to produce at the moment,
and for that reason the fixture set down for the 31st is vacated.

[8] He will be remanded further with bail to continue to 1 September for call-over at 9.00am, at
which time time-tabling orders can be made, and I would have thought that one day would be
needed for the proper hearing of the application for stay, if evidence is to be called, although
the validity of the search warrant can no doubt be determined more rapidly.

C J Field (signed)
District Court Judge

On 1st September Auckland District Court set the following timetable –
1 December 2009 Green to file submissions on stay of proceedings application.
14 December 2009 Crown to respond.
21 December 2009 at 10am at Auckland District Court evidence and oral argument.