cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Delays Pot Appeal





Supreme Court Delays Pot Appeal
Posted by CN Staff on December 14, 2002 at 08:02:13 PT
By Kim Lunman
Source: Globe and Mail 
Canada's highest court said it had no choice but to postpone a landmark case yesterday in light of the federal government's decision to introduce legislation to decriminalize marijuana.In a rare move, the Supreme Court of Canada sought to adjourn a hearing on claims by convicted pot smokers that the federal marijuana laws are unconstitutional because the drug is harmless. The lawyers for the defendants and the Crown wanted to go ahead with the hearing, but Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said that wouldn't make sense.
"A central question is the Minister of Justice has announced his intention to introduce legislation in the Parliament that will decriminalize, in some ways, possession of marijuana," she said."The underlying basis will be taken up in Parliament and widely discussed for months to come. In considering all of these circumstances, the court will adjourn."The appeal, which has become a flagship case for marijuana users across Canada who want pot legalized, will be heard sometime during the Supreme Court's spring session, which starts in April.Its adjournment came one day after a special parliamentary committee on the non-medical use of drugs recommended decriminalizing marijuana for possession of amounts up to 30 grams.The change would mean pot is still illegal, but possession in smaller amounts would be punishable by fine and not carry a criminal record.Earlier this week, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said he would introduce legislation to decriminalize marijuana in the new year.The three appellants in the case, convicted of possession and trafficking, are making a constitutional challenge to the marijuana laws."It seems to me there's an utmost disrespect that was shown for the legal process," said lawyer Alan Young, who represents one of the defendants, Christopher Clay."The court feels they've been put in a difficult position. The Minister of Justice should not have done that.""Smoking pot is a relatively harmless activity in the overwhelming majority of cases," said Paul Burstein, who also represents Mr. Clay. "It's unconstitutional for Parliament to use the criminal law to prohibit something that causes no harm."Mr. Clay, 31, who owned a store in London, Ont., called the Great Canadian Hempatorium, was given a $700 fine and three years probation in 1997 when he was convicted of marijuana possession and trafficking."I've waited eight years. I can wait a bit longer," Mr. Clay said yesterday."I think there's tremendous pressure on Parliament to do something.""I think we'll be back here in the spring session," said 31-year-old David Malmo-Levine, another defendant."The government won't have raised a finger, won't have done anything, or else they'll have introduced a horrible bill that will result in many people going to jail for unpaid fines . . . either way, we'll be back here with the same complaints."The other defendant in the case is Victor Caine, a B.C. man who was convicted of possession after he was arrested in 1993 while sharing a joint with a friend in his car.Note: Ottawa's move toward decriminalization puts landmark appeal on backburner.Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Author:  Kim LunmanPublished: Saturday, December 14, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A7Copyright: 2002 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:The Compassion Clubhttp://www.thecompassionclub.org/Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmHigh Court Marijuana Case in Limbohttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14971.shtmlFormer London Hemp Activist Gets Day in Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14962.shtmlLawyer Doubts Ottawa's Pot Talkhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14954.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment