Canadian marijuana cases go ahead, even for less than two grams

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member

AFP PHOTO / KENZO TRIBOUILLARDKENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty Images

A man rolls a marijuana joint during a demonstration to call for the legalisation of marijuana, on May 14, 2016 in Paris, France.... He's rolling tobacco...you can see the half-smoke on his pant leg! At first I just thought it was brown LP schwagg...

By: Staff Torstar News Service Published on Mon Jun 20 2016
It would appear no amount of weed is too small for the federal government to prosecute as it works toward legalizing the drug for recreational use.

Brandon Richards was pulled over after leaving the parking lot of a Guelph strip club shortly after 1 a.m. in October 2014 for a sobriety check. He passed, but the officer said he detected the odour of marijuana.

The big discovery: 1.15 g of pot. A street value of about $10.

Richards was charged with simple possession, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the federal agency that handles drug crimes, chose to take the matter to court, where Richards was found guilty and ordered to pay a $100 fine in April 2015.

The Liberals, with their promise of legalization, were elected to power a few months later.

Richards appealed his conviction, and the PPSC fought him there as well. But late last month Superior Court Justice Casey Hill overturned Richards’ conviction, saying the police officer failed to advise him of his right to a lawyer after asking him if he had any marijuana.

The case is one example for why Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould should order the PPSC to stop prosecuting individuals for simple possession of marijuana while it works on legalization, Richards’ lawyer told the Star.

“Nobody knows what’s going on, nobody knows who to ask what’s going on, and we’re in this very strange position where marijuana is still illegal, but it’s been announced that it’s going to be legal,” said Benjamin Goldman.

“I think the message sent to the public is that there is no consistency and no predictably in the system. This might not have happened with a different Crown attorney, with a different police force, in a different jurisdiction.”

Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott announced in April that the government intends to legalize pot for recreational use by next spring. A task force is expected to present its recommendations on legalization later this year.

In the meantime, it’s business as usual at the PPSC when it comes to pot.

“The cannabis-related offences contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act have not been amended and continue in force,” said an agency spokeswoman.

The decision to take individuals to court — an exhausting and costly experience — for such small amounts of marijuana and then slap them with criminal records “seems inappropriate” given that legalization is imminent, said criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown, who was not involved in the case.

“There are serious cases being stayed or thrown out of court because of delay when the courts are clogged up prosecuting relatively minor marijuana charges, and it’s important to prioritize matters to ensure that the serious cases are the ones being prosecuted,” he said.

Richards is black, but the judge at his trial dismissed his lawyer’s argument that there was racial profiling. Goldman said he accepts the judge’s ruling.

“Do I have my suspicions that there was a possible racial element in this? Yes, I have my suspicions,” he told the Star.

On appeal, Hill ruled that the failure of the Guelph police officer to immediately advise Richards of his right to counsel was serious.

“Traffic stops are a routine feature of the duties of uniformed patrol officers. There should have been no legal uncertainty as to the officer’s obligations,” Hill wrote. “This is hardly a trivial, technical, or inadvertent breach.”
 

MeJuana

Well-Known Member
Police officers that I've dealt with are all on this power trip and they don't care about what is about to become legal. Like a rapist they get off on being in control and they will use anything to get their kicks. Since these are the only idiots dumb enough to get shot at for a living in their own country what are you really gonna do? I am not policing shit besides my own yard and someones gotta do it because we have some real winners out there. Lessor of two evils if you will.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Any law or punishment must be "justifiable in a free and democratic society"...so says our charter of rights and freedoms. Even if possession remains technically illegal for now, the offense does not justify slapping someone with a criminal record for something that is mere months away from being legal. It could be fought all the way to the SC...and won. Not sure why it hasn't been done already.
 

oddish

Well-Known Member
Police officers that I've dealt with are all on this power trip and they don't care about what is about to become legal. Like a rapist they get off on being in control and they will use anything to get their kicks. Since these are the only idiots dumb enough to get shot at for a living in their own country what are you really gonna do? I am not policing shit besides my own yard and someones gotta do it because we have some real winners out there. Lessor of two evils if you will.
Exact opposite of the police I've talked to, which is quite a few.
They can't wait to stop having to deal with the calls, they won't prosecute anything less than 5oz and they give no fucks about people smoking it.
People smoke dope and crack in front of the London Police headquarters all the time :)
 

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
Even if possession remains technically illegal for now, the offense does not justify slapping someone with a criminal record for something that is mere months away from being legal. It could be fought all the way to the SC...and won. Not sure why it hasn't been done already.
So much no.

As has been mentioned a lot here, a liberal platform promise has no weight in a court of law as far as justification for acquittal. Possessing cannabis for recreational purposes is illegal in any amount with the laws on the books now, there is no 'technically' illegal. You wouldn't get past a trial judge with this kind of reasoning, much less make it to the SCC.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
So much no.

As has been mentioned a lot here, a liberal platform promise has no weight in a court of law as far as justification for acquittal. Possessing cannabis for recreational purposes is illegal in any amount with the laws on the books now, there is no 'technically' illegal. You wouldn't get past a trial judge with this kind of reasoning, much less make it to the SCC.
And your qualifications for interpreting constitutional law would be what, exactly? You somehow missed the entire premise of my post . Ah well, didn't stop you from making a dismissive, arrogant reply...
" The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Are you saying you and society as a whole agree with the current arrests and punishment for simple possession? If the answer is no, than it can not be justified according to our laws. It can and should be challenged.
Legalization is more than a Liberal platform promise. They have formed a committee to create a system, announced a timeline for implementation, and have been consulting various interests to work with them. Whether or not you think that holds any weight in the law is really irrelevant. It's how the judge interprets 'justifiable' in accordance with our laws and the current level of acceptance by society. The current situation has caused confusion with enforcement or lack thereof depending on which town you happen to be in and that alone could convince a judge that prosecuting such charges can no longer be justified.
 

MeJuana

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry I said that it was mean but I've dealt with some real special characters. I shouldn't generalize like that just because I am mad at a few
 

Gquebed

Well-Known Member
So much no.

As has been mentioned a lot here, a liberal platform promise has no weight in a court of law as far as justification for acquittal. Possessing cannabis for recreational purposes is illegal in any amount with the laws on the books now, there is no 'technically' illegal. You wouldn't get past a trial judge with this kind of reasoning, much less make it to the SCC.
So much no here.

It all comes down to personal bias in the police officer and the judge. Very few cops would bother citing for possession but some do because the law is the law until it is not and they have a personal bias against weed. Same goes for judges. Some will let the "crime" be prosecuted and punished. But most wont bother. In fact, even in Alberta there have been judges who have ripped prosecutors and cops for wasting the courts time with possesion charges...

...and so it can be argued that the argument of imminent legalization certainly does work.... and very well...
 

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
And your qualifications for interpreting constitutional law would be what, exactly? You somehow missed the entire premise of my post . Ah well, didn't stop you from making a dismissive, arrogant reply...
" The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Are you saying you and society as a whole agree with the current arrests and punishment for simple possession? If the answer is no, than it can not be justified according to our laws. It can and should be challenged.
Legalization is more than a Liberal platform promise. They have formed a committee to create a system, announced a timeline for implementation, and have been consulting various interests to work with them. Whether or not you think that holds any weight in the law is really irrelevant. It's how the judge interprets 'justifiable' in accordance with our laws and the current level of acceptance by society. The current situation has caused confusion with enforcement or lack thereof depending on which town you happen to be in and that alone could convince a judge that prosecuting such charges can no longer be justified.
Your argument is that because the government has said they're going to make currently illegal act X not illegal, that it's somehow unconstitutional to charge people with a crime. This is untrue on a variety of fronts, and your interpretation of the Charter is tenuous, at best.

Tell you what, you run your idea of the 'they're going to make it legal anyway so don't charge my client' against defence counsel and see what they have to say. If the crown wants to charge someone for possession of a 1 gram, they can.

Also what judges in what cases in Alberta have made negative comments towards prosecutors? I was doing a look through possession cases the other day for something unrelated and didn't see anything of the sort.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Your argument is that because the government has said they're going to make currently illegal act X not illegal, that it's somehow unconstitutional to charge people with a crime. This is untrue on a variety of fronts, and your interpretation of the Charter is tenuous, at best.

Tell you what, you run your idea of the 'they're going to make it legal anyway so don't charge my client' against defence counsel and see what they have to say. If the crown wants to charge someone for possession of a 1 gram, they can.

Also what judges in what cases in Alberta have made negative comments towards prosecutors? I was doing a look through possession cases the other day for something unrelated and didn't see anything of the sort.
No...you are again completely missing my point. ..but thank you for your profound opinion and evaluation of my interpretation of the Charter. Where did you say you studied constitutional law again? Nowhere did I say imminent legalization in itself makes possession charges unconstitutional. I said given the current climate around cannabis, including promised legalization, as well as inconsistent and confused enforcement, the argument exists for a Charter challenge based on such charges being 'Justifiable'. Both are good indicators that the laws are no longer relevant and society cannot justify the cost of prosecuting what most no longer consider an offense, imo. You may not agree, but it doesn't make me wrong.
I've never mentioned Alberta judges or their comments...got me confused with someone else, there.
 

JungleStrikeGuy

Well-Known Member
I said given the current climate around cannabis, including promised legalization, as well as inconsistent and confused enforcement, the argument exists for a Charter challenge based on such charges being 'Justifiable'.
Nope. A 'Charter challenge' is a case predicated on some piece of legislation violating a Charter right in a way, even if during the course of the proceedings it is determined that it is justified under s.1. It's not just cherry-picking one statement from the Charter, irrespective of all court precedents and decisions and presenting it as a defense.

It's clear it's not an effective use of my time to try and explain the legal principles here though, so believe whatever you wish.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
Nope. A 'Charter challenge' is a case predicated on some piece of legislation violating a Charter right in a way, even if during the course of the proceedings it is determined that it is justified under s.1. It's not just cherry-picking one statement from the Charter, irrespective of all court precedents and decisions and presenting it as a defense.

It's clear it's not an effective use of my time to try and explain the legal principles here though, so believe whatever you wish.
Nope. You, and others, have reminded us repeatedly that the mmar and mmpr are not legislation but instead are a collection of random thoughts published in a gazette. Both have been challenged, successfully. Nobody is cherry picking anything...the law is either justifiable in today's society or it isn't.
"It's clear it's not an effective use of my time to try and explain the legal principles here though, so believe whatever you wish" Well, thank you for your permission to believe in what I want...you are too kind. Considering you have ignored my questions concerning your expertise in constitutional law, I will assume you possess the same qualifications as I do.
 

Gquebed

Well-Known Member
Also what judges in what cases in Alberta have made negative comments towards prosecutors? I was doing a look through possession cases the other day for something unrelated and didn't see anything of the sort.

Well here is a weak attempt to imply that you are somehow an expert in law?

I would like answer your question with a specific case name, but i cant...simply cant because on the day i witnessed exactly this i did not think i would need to reference it and so did not note the particulars.

But... i was in court catching some of the Vader trial and to kill some time while he was late i popped my head into a few different rooms... where i watched a prosecutor get lambasted for proceeding with a possesion case of under 7 grams.

Now... if you are as intimate with the alberta courts as you imply then the Vader clue should be an easy one for you to use to hunt down the transcript of the specific case i mention here

But i have to say... if you have the time and gumption to bother and then to actually read through them then ....

Well, knock yourself out.
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
wynne says it needs to be sold in LLCBO's
MMJ wont be sold in LLCBO and MMJ can be GROWN by PATIENTS

The joke here is everyone and their uncle will become a patient...even if it is just t relax. (:
Then all of a sudden. REC wont matter much. The craze will be to GROW YOUR OWN!!...
and theres ZERO old miss water holder can do about it either.
She is far to late to control anything.
she can hope someone is listening ;)
cheers
 

nobody important 666

Well-Known Member
Exact opposite of the police I've talked to, which is quite a few.
They can't wait to stop having to deal with the calls, they won't prosecute anything less than 5oz and they give no fucks about people smoking it.
People smoke dope and crack in front of the London Police headquarters all the time :)
I like sticking a few seeds in their planters for fun.
 
Top