CANNABUS      

       Thank you for taking the trouble to visit.
And an even bigger thank you to the website creator and to those who have helped both here and on facebook. Feel free to be ''informative and educational''...however, I must point out that this website is not ''concerned with intent to supply cannabis''..it's about  ENDING PROHIBITION...so, in other words, if you're here to try and score then go back home and start growing your own, for your personal use. You will find Transcript further down the page.

''It is no longer in the Interests of the Public to secure a [Cannabis] conviction, if that conviction is no longer in that public's interest and serves no further relevant purpose.''

"If you can be at home with your own homebrew, lawfully purchased, through lawful means and being used  for the purpose for which it was intended....Then surely you can do the same with your own Cannabis?"  Where's my legal protection ?

If anyone wants to talk to me personally about this I'll happily chat about it here or on facebook. I will also explain why ''Harm''(Quality) and ''Quantity'' are no longer relevant. See TRANSCRIPT below.. 

                                                                       -------------------------   

No Discrimination.  Skunk or Drunk.
Legal Protections - Same as alcohol.
             

---

 

Get ready for a pile of steaming shit.... 

                                                                                                    Transcript. 

 ''101 Cannabis Plants.

Quantity and Quality - Irrelevant.''   

This is the one.....SENTENCING REMARKS... (11.10a.m)  Thu Aug 23, 2007.

Summing Up...

Judge Thomas: Thank you ladies and gentlemen.You arrive at verdicts in this case, a verdict in this case by applying your findings on evidence to my directions of law. Our functions in this trial have been and remain quite different. Throughout the trial the law has been my responsibility, and I must now give you directions as to the law, which applies in this case. When I do so you must accept those directions and follow them faithfully.

        It is also my function to remind you of the pre-eminent features of the evidence. When I do so I trespass on your province and I do only in an effort to assist you. It has always been your responsibility throughout the case to judge all the evidence and to decide all the relevant facts. You will wish to take account of the arguments that have been presented to you,
but you are not bound to accept them.

    Equally if, in the course of my review of the evidence I appear to express a view of the facts or emphasise a particular aspect of the evidence, do not accept that view or emphasis unless you agree with it. Equally, if I do not mention something which you thought was important, you should have regard to it and give it such weight as it deserves. When it comes to the facts of the case it is your judgment alone that counts.

     You do not have to decide every point which has been raised. only such matters that will enable you to say whether the charge made against the defendant has been proved or not. You do that having regard to the whole of the evidence and form your own judgment about the witnesses and which evidence is reliable and which evidence is not. You must decide this case only on the evidence you have heard. There will be no more. You are intitled to draw inferences, that is to say, to come to common sense conclusions based on the evidence, which you accept, but you may not speculate about what other evidence there might have been.

       In this case, as with all criminal trials the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty.He does not have to prove his innocence. The burden of proving the defendants guilt remains upon the prosecution from the start of the trial to the very end.

        So, how does the prosecution go about proving the defendant guilty, the answer is by making you sure of it, nothing less will do. If after considering all of the evidence you are sure of his guilt you will say so by returning a verdict of guilty. If you are not sure then your verdict must be one of not guilty.
So, what did the prosecution have to prove?

     The charge is one of producing cannabis and the prosecution prove that Mr.M produced cannabis. Production in this case means producing it by manufacture or cultivation or any other name and it includes growing it. Secondly, that what was produced was in fact cannabis and thirdly that cannabis is a controlled drug of Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

        Angela White the forencic scientist confirmed both of these last two elements, that what the police seized were in fact cannabis plants and that cannabis is a controlled drug of ClassC. She told us that the samples of the plants which she tested gave positive results for the presence of THC, the active chemical constituent of cannabis and..

'' it does not matter whether cannabis has a high THC content or a low THC content. In other words it does not matter how well it would satisfy an experienced cannabis user. It is nevertheless cannabis. '' (?)

''  Expert evidence of this kind " is permitted in a criminal trial to provide you with scientific information and opinion, which is within the witness's expertise that which is likely to be outside your expertise and knowledge.

    It is by no means unusual for scientific evidence of this nature to be called and it is important you should see it in its proper perspective which is that it is before you as part of the evidence as a whole to assist you with regard to one particular aspect of the evidence, namely what the plants were that were seized by police on 25th. Oct (2006)

      A witness called as an expert such as Ms. White, is entitled to express her opinion in respect of her findings and you are entitled and would no doubt have regard to her evidence and to the opinion which she expressed, when coming to your own conclusions about this aspect of the case, you should bear in mind that having given matter careful consideration, you do not accept Ms. White evidence, you do not have to act upon it. It is for you to decide whose evidence and whose opinions you accept, if any.

     You should remember than this evidence relates only to part of the case and that whilst it may be of assistance to you in reaching a verdict, you must reach you verdict after considering all of the evidence.

        Mr. M. has chosen not to give evidence. That is his right. He is entitled to remain silent and to require the prosecution to make sure of his guilt.You must not assume he is guilty because he has not given evidence, but two matters do arise from his silence. In the first place you try the case according to the evidence and you will apreciate that Mr. M has not given evidence at the trial to undermine, to contradict or to explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution.

     In the second place, his silence at this trial may count against him. this is because you may draw the conclusion that he has not given evidence because he has no answer to the prosecution case or none that would stand up to examination. If you do draw that conclusion you must not convict him wholly or mainly on the strength of it, but you may treat it as some additional support for the prosecution case.

      However, you may draw such conclusion against him only if you think it is a fair and proper conclusion and you are satisfied about two things. First that the prosecution case is so stromg that that it clearly calls for answer by him and second that the only sensible explanation for his failure to give evidence is that he has no answer or none that would stand up to scrutiny.

       The defendant's case is, in essence, that by criminalising cannabis Parliament is in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which preserves his fight to respect his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Article 8 does not mean that people can do what they like, as long as they do it in private.

      Article 8 specifically reserves the right for public authority, in this case Parliament,to pass legislations which infringes upon our right to do whatever we please, if it is in the interests, for example of public safety, economic well-being of the country or the protection of health ...

...''and Parliament has determined, after open debate that the use of cannabis is harmful to health and decided to make it unlawful.'' (?)

       Article 10 of the convention on Human Rights Preserves Mr. M''s right to Freedom of Expression. He disagrees with what Parliament has chosen to do and he is entitled to express his view. He cannot say,"I am not bound by the legislation" either because he disagrees with it or because he does not accept the conclusion that cannabis is harmful and nor does it avail him to say that Parliament has acted improperly and has infringed his rights in any way.

      We live in a democratic society where we have the right to elect a government to impose rules upon us for the benefit of society as a whole. Parliament must decide what should be controlled and what should be freely available. With the freedoms of democracy and free speech, come the responsibilities to abide by the rules, which are lawfully imposed upon us. Here parliament has decided to make the production of cannabis unlawful (?) and in accordance with a right to a fair trial enshrined in the Convention on Human Rights, only you the jury can say whether Mr. M. is guilty of that offence or not.

    Well, those are the legal discussions which I need to give you. If I turn now to my review of the evidence. It is going to be a very brief one.

     You know that the police visited an area of woodland ouside (inaudible) at about midday on 25th October 2006. They found there five caravans. Two of them apparently not in use.Those are the ones shown in photo 23.Two more were behind the shed that you see in photos 2 and 3 and adjacent to the generators that you see in photos 6 and 9. The generators were powering the lights and fan, which were on in one of the caravans, which was itself covered in a black tarpaulin. Inside the two caravans were the plants that you see in photo 13 to 21 inclusive and inside the fifth caravan, which is shown in photos 24 to 28 they found Mr.M. together with exhibits 1,2,3 and 4. The items which are on the bench in front of us, which the Crown say were the result of Mr. M. harvesting his crop.

They found that Mr.M. was wholly co-operative. They were executimg a search warrant at his caravan and they asked him who owned the caravans and Mr. M. said," I do." They asked him."What's inside the caravans?" He said, "Weed" They asked him,"What do you mean by weed?" And he said to them, "Cannabis" When they told him they wer arresting him for possession of cannabis, he said, " It is my right to a private life under Article 8".

      Well, the various plants and the items that are on the bench, Exhibit 1,2,3 and 4 were all sent off to the forensic science laboratory at Chepstow. Angela White the forensic scientist who you heard from had a look at them, carried out various tests upon them. She could not estimate the size of the harvest because the plants were not ready yet to be harvested and therefore size yield would depend on how well they were looked after from that stage onwards.

        She said they were cannabis plants They contained the chemical constituent THC which is found in cannabis.
That is my review of the evidence ladies and gentlemen. The prosecution say that on the basis you can safely conclude that Mr. M. was carrying on the ''business'' (?) of growing cannabis at the woodland settlement that he had ''set up for himself,'' surrounded by these various caravans.

If you are satisfied so as to be sure that that is right , then you will find him guilty. If you are not sure then you will find him not guilty. You may have heard that in certain circumstances the court can accept what is known as majority verdict. Those circumstances have not arisen in this case and they never arise. If they do I will send for you and give you a further direction on majority verdicts.

      For the time being please, put out of your mind any notion of returning a majority verdict and strive to reach please, a unanimous verdict, one with which you all agree........
That's it folks....the verdict was Guilty....:)

         Cunning, devious and twisted.
By the way..5 months later

Dec.19th.2007. Busted again with 104 cannabis plants. Ooops.

The conclusion to this episode can be found on ''The Cannabus Trip'', but as 2010 begins, that's not the end of the story....