|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
We all know the names of the busts but here is the legal low down
As self professed stones fanatics you all should read this once at least
This first took a good deal of time to find as it was originally only reported in �The Times� (back in the old days when some newspapers were considered documents of record) - the judgment of the appeal to the redlands bust conviction and some time in the wormwood scrubs � the lesson, beware the prejudicial over the probative and welcome to the (somewhat orwellian) notion of trial by expert
R v. RICHARDS
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Lord Parker C.J., Winn L.J. and Cusack J, : �The Times�, August 1, 1967.
Richards was convicted of permitting his house to be used for the purpose of smoking cannabis. His defence was that he was unaware that anyone had smoked it at his house and he had not given any- one permission to do so. (ed. note � say what!!!) Part of the evidence concerned a girl who was at the party his house and who was clad only in a wrap. It was the prosecution case that her behaviour was consistent ONLY (my emphasis) with having smoked cannabis and a police officer was called to give evidence of the effects of smoking cannabis. Richards appealed on the grounds that the judge should have excluded it in the exercise of his discretion .
HELD , allowing the appeal, although as it turned out the evidence of the police officer was based on text-book knowledge, at the time when the judge had to rule the evidence was prima facie admissible, and it could not be said that he had exercised his discretion wrongly. However, in cross � examination it had become clear that the only matters which pointed to the girl having smoked cannabis were her dress and that she was merry and unconcerned and that she had not exhibited other effects of smoking cannabis. The evidence about the girl was highly prejudicial and not such as to enable the jury to be sure she had smoked cannabis. In the circumstances the judge should have warned the jury that there was only tenuous evidence that the girl had smoked cannabis and that Richards must have known it and that it would be unsafe to allow the verdict to stand.
so thanks keith for furthering the protection of the innocent (you�re right...we are not old men (or women)and we have no time for petty morals!!) but thank god for the presumption of innocence and a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and i know you know what i mean..
Coming up next:
Keith�s Kanadian Kourt Room Konundrum (jah is mighty!!)
The Ontario Court of Appeal 17 September 1979
�blind angels fly� aka �the fix is in�
Where the experts really have their say
The big question?? � Why are there so many junkies (not to mention flea bit peanut monkeys)???
|
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]