Cases
The following are legal cases supported and assisted by the Drug Equality Alliance:
Latest News:
- 27th March 2009 - New case: Alan Taylor v Wigan and Leigh Magistrates' Court. Read More
- 5th March 2009 - Edwin Stratton's application for permission to apply for Judicial Review has been refused, Edwin is now requesting an oral hearing to address misunderstandings and errors of law made by the judge. Read More
Alan Taylor v Wigan and Leigh Magistrates' Court
The Drug Equality Alliance is currently supporting and assisting
Mr. Taylor in his challenge of the legality of
the administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Mr. Taylor is a local secondary school science teacher of some ten
years standing, he has been suspended from work for many months
prior to being charged with the possession and production of
a small amount of cannabis for personal use.
We are also assisting Mr. Taylor's challenge of the actions taken by the police who, before any charges were made, chose to make representations to Mr. Taylor's school and the education authority about their suspicion that he was involved with the production of four cannabis plants. This effectively forced the school to take action. The current rules governing such pre-charge disclosures by the police came about as a response to the terrible acts perpetrated by Ian Huntley, although Huntley was known to the police as a dangerous man, no clear mandate was available to the police at the time to warn the school prior to the murders being committed. Police disclosures to employers are now legal if there is genuine concern that someone might pose a serious risk to children (by their suspected propensity to engage in abusive, violent or sexual behaviour towards children). It is envisaged that in these particular cases the interests of child protection may outweigh a suspect's automatic right to privacy and data protection. The extension of these powers into the realm of peaceful drug activities which were in the private domain, especially prior to the individual in question being formally charged, represents a worrying trend.
The organisation Liberty has indicated that the police disclosures of their suspicions to the school and education authority in this case (made in writing and at least 2 meetings) are challengeable in law. The police have some discretion to make pre-charge disclosures in cases where there is a clear risk of violence or abuse to children under the care of teachers. However, given that there was no suggestion of any supply of drugs, nor any question as to Mr. Taylor's professionalism at school, the police's actions were clearly disproportionate. Indeed, their actions have effectively forced the school's hand, preventing Mr. Taylor from doing the job which he cares passionately about, and depriving the school and its students of a teacher judged by Ofsted to be "excellent". He asserts that even if someone is known to the police to have private interests in cannabis, this should not be grounds for disciplinary matters in respect of their employment or housing without good reasons relating to their conduct.
Alan Taylor says: "I fully support the aims of The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, who could disagree with the need to reduce the harm done by all drugs to individuals and society? I also agree with the Act's stated aim that the measures to achieve this should be based upon evidence, and evolve as the evidence evolves. Unfortunately successive governments have completely failed to even attempt this, instead choosing electoral advantage, supporting the production and supply of the drugs that the majority uses whilst simultaneously demonising equally or less harmful drugs that a minority uses and dehumanising their users. The consequences of this are often devastating to the lives of individuals, their families and to society, fatally undermining the credibility of any drugs education message and leaving the young vulnerable to ignorance, mythology and predatory criminals. Even if prohibition worked (and the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn't) it would be debatable whether it justified the human rights abuses perpetrated in its name. Cannabis users generally cause far less harm to themselves and others than alcohol drinkers and yet are compelled not only to risk arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, but also to endure the risk of dealing with criminal elements, as well as being forced to potentially compromise their health due to contaminants and exposure to products of unknown strength or origin - I sought to avoid all this by trying to grow a tiny crop myself".
The essence of Mr. Taylor's claim is to assert the primacy of Parliament and the rule of law and to protect these principles from abuse by the people who have been entrusted with administering the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government refuses to regulate the drugs alcohol and tobacco on equal terms with other equally or less harmful substances in spite of growing evidence that this distinction is entirely arbitrary. This is submitted to be a discrimination under Article 14 of the Human Rights Act on the grounds of property and legal status, arising from the express statutory duty created by the Misuse of Drugs Act and common law duties of fairness and equal protection. Other Articles of the Human Right Act are also violated. Mr. Taylor asserts that this discrimination is both irrational and illegal.
The Government recently refused to raise the price of alcohol, so as not to punish responsible drinkers - why is this same principle not extended to users of other, equally safe or equally harmful recreational drugs? Is any drug safe enough to be distributed by criminals?
Edwin Stratton v Waltham Forest Magistrates' Court
The Drug Equality Alliance is providing legal assistance to disabled medical-cannabis user Edwin Stratton, 43, of Leyton in East London, who seeks to achieve equal protection and equal rights for all users of equally-harmful drugs, in the High Court.
In May of 2008, Mr. Stratton was at home when a fire broke out in a neighbouring wine bar requiring the evacuation of tenants in adjacent properties. In the process, police discovered the cannabis plants Mr. Stratton was growing for his medical condition.
Fully co-operating with police, Mr. Stratton admitted the fact that he privately grew cannabis plants in his home, in order to combat his medical condition. Mr. Stratton rejected a police caution, reasoning that the denial of property rights in cannabis is discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is understood in light of the analogous comparison, that identical property rights are not denied to people who choose to brew the equally or more harmful drug, alcohol.
On his refusal to accept a caution and thus acknowledge culpability, Mr. Stratton was charged with production of a controlled drug of Class C, by another, in contravention of section 4 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Mr. Stratton attended court on October 1st, 2008, accompanied by Mr Darryl Bickler of the Drug Equality Alliance acting as his "McKenzie Friend". Mr. Stratton declined to plead, and instead moved to quash the indictment as an abuse of process, using the "Mackeson" application format. The Magistrate properly declined jurisdiction and adjourned proceedings, giving Mr. Stratton leave to apply to the High Court for permission for Judicial Review.
Mr. Stratton's full legal claim for Judicial Review, including relevant evidence, may be downloaded from the link below. Should you wish to download this documentation; a discretionary contribution is invited, which can be remitted via PayPal.
Edwin Stratton - Application seeking permission for Judicial Review (PDF)
Update - 5th March 2009
Mr. Stratton's application for permission to apply for Judicial Review has been refused on the grounds that :
- The judicial review of a decision to prosecute should only be considered in rare and exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the Claimant's complaint can be raised within the criminal trial by requesting that the prosecution be stayed as an abuse of process
- The Court of Appeal has, through various precedents, excluded the possibility of defence of medical necessity in relation to cannabis.
This refusal however contains several alarming misunderstandings and errors of law, as summarised below:
- Mr. Stratton's claim seeks to prohibit his committal for trial at Waltham Forest Magistrates' Court. The claimant does not seek a Judicial Review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to charge him.
- Despite the Claimant's condition, the Claimant's request has nothing to do with medical necessity. At no point did the Claimant indicate any intention to rely on medical necessity. Rather, the claim alleges an Abuse of Power by Her Majesty's Government in the administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and unfairness. This argument, which is the crux of the case, has not been addressed at all.
We strongly believe that Mr. Stratton's application has not been properly considered or understood. Particularly shocking is the assumption of a defence of medical necessity, presumably on no grounds other than prejudice due to Mr. Stratton's disability, without making a reasonable effort to consider the core arguments put forward in the application which have nothing to do with medical necessity. Mr. Stratton has thus requested an oral hearing to address these glaring issues.
Judge's Decision:
Edwin Stratton - Summary of Grounds contesting the claim, page 1
Edwin Stratton - Summary of Grounds contesting the claim, page 2
Edwin's Response:
Edwin Stratton - Request for Oral Hearing (PDF)
