UK - Possible to bring to court media lies.

[cannabis-sam]

In regards to the recent shite the media have talked about the harm of some drugs, would it theoretically be possible to bring a court case about. What legal contradictions would there be to manipulating facts in such a way.

I started this thread after reading a post by fnord saying sue there asses off and it got me thinking. If in a court of law the real evidence was presented and what the media said was presented side by side would there be a case.

I know this is a bit of a stupid post just wondered.

Reputation Comments on this post:

an interesting thought. Maybe that would improve society

[Dewmeister]

I always wondered what would happen if a person with cancer got sent to court over pot use and argued that he is merely curing his disease with it. That person could argue that pot is listed as having no known medical use even though it does and for that reason, the law is unjust and he should not be prosecuted.

If that ever happens, I hope to god that the case is as publicized as possible!

[Sven99]

UK drug law is currently being challenged on the grounds that by making arbitrary distinctions between drugs, it contravenes Human Rights legislation - which forbids governments from discriminating based on arbitrary factors

More info here http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/...drugs-law.html

The press seem to be ignoring this one - funny that

[Sunshine-Band]

Originally Posted by Sven99

UK drug law is currently being challenged on the grounds that by making arbitrary distinctions between drugs, it contravenes Human Rights legislation - which forbids governments from discriminating based on arbitrary factors

link edited

The press seem to be ignoring this one - funny that

This from Peter Tatchell in the Guardian Online:

"The reclassification of cannabis from a class C to a class B drug has finally come into effect. The government defied expert scientific and medical opinion, which opposed reclassification on the grounds that cannabis is not as harmful as other class B drugs and that its harm was not sufficient to warrant harsher penalties. The government's own Advisory Council of the Misuse of Drugs recommended that it should remain a class C drug.
Ignoring the expert evidence, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, caved in to irrational, ill-informed anti-cannabis hysteria. Making no distinction between responsible, occasional use and reckless, constant abuse, she has now reclassified all cannabis enjoyment as dangerous and harmful, and upped the maximum penalties for possession from two to five years.
This signals to the police and the courts that they should treat cannabis more harshly, on a par with demonstrably damaging banned narcotics. Meanwhile, the most socially harmful drugs, alcohol and tobacco, remain legal and outside the scope of anti-drugs legislation.
This selective get-tough-on-drugs policy seems motivated by the government's cynical desire to win few extra votes from Daily Mail readers. It has little to do with any genuine or effective attempt to encourage less frequent and safer cannabis use via advice such as: "Eat it, don't smoke it" and "Every day? Perhaps not good. Save it for a special occasion."
Millions of Britons enjoy cannabis sensibly, in moderation and without harm to themselves or others. Tens of thousands use it to ameliorate the symptoms of diseases such as cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis.
East Londoner Edwin Stratton is one of them. For the last 18 months he's been using cannabis to treat his disabling coeliac condition. He's found it immensely effective, reducing his pain and nausea and improving his appetite. It has enabled him to cut his prescription medicines by half, saving the NHS a lot of money in the process.
Experiencing the medical benefits of cannabis and being of modest financial means, Stratton decided to grow his own. Self-production not only cut his costs, it also eliminated the need for him to deal with the criminal gangs who supply cannabis; striking a personal blow against the organised crime syndicates that dominate the drugs trade. Also important, home growing enabled him to protect himself from the pesticides and other chemicals frequently used by cannabis cartel producers.
Unfortunately, in May 2008, the police discovered Stratton's home-grown during a routine investigation. He acknowledged that he privately grew cannabis plants in his home, to combat his medical condition. Rejecting a police caution, he chose to fight the case. He believes that under the Human Rights Act the denial of his right to grow and possess cannabis is an invasion of privacy and a denial of property rights. It is also discriminatory in that this right is not denied to people who choose to brew at home the equally or more harmful drug, alcohol.
Stratton was duly charged with production of a controlled drug (then class C), in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Stratton attended Waltham Forest magistrate's court in October 2008, accompanied by Darryl Bickler of the Drug Equality Alliance, acting as his "McKenzie Friend". He declined to plead, and instead moved to quash the indictment as an abuse of process. The magistrate agreed to a stay of proceedings, giving Stratton leave to apply to the high court for permission for a judicial review of the decision to prosecute him. His judicial review application is eloquent and compelling.
Stratton is backed by the Drug Equality Alliance with the support of the drug charities Release and Transform Drug Policy Foundation. The essence of his legal defence includes four issues: the right to privacy, the protection of property rights, the unequal application of the law to controlled and non-controlled drug users and the maladministration of the Misuse of Drugs Act – most notably the government's failure to make drug use penalties uniformly commensurate with the harm they cause.
According to Stratton:

I am not fighting the law as it stands, but its misapplication by the government and its state agencies. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a pretty good piece of legislation, because it's designed to evolve along evidential lines. It explicitly provides for the relaxation of controls on drugs in accordance with scientific evidence of relative harms. However, government and judicial policy hasn't developed in line with scientific evidence, and vast swaths of the act have clearly been ignored or not understood.

Stratton was recently referred to a Whipps Cross hospital pain specialist. After mentioning the relief cannabis provides him, the doctor offered to prescribe something similar. He issued a prescription for Nabilone, a synthetic analogue of Delta-9 THC, which is virtually identical to the main psychoactive substance in cannabis. It is ironic that the government forbids Stratton to use natural cannabis, but allows the NHS to prescribe him a synthetic version.
Unfortunately, Nabilone does not work for Stratton. Moreover, if it did work, it would cost the NHS and the taxpayer approximately £9,000 a year. Stratton, in contrast, can grow a year's supply of more effective herbal cannabis for less than £250 – a payment he is prepared to cover himself. Any rational cost-benefit analysis would conclude that Nabilone is medically inferior and a financial rip-off of the NHS.
Whichever way you look at it, the government's drug policy is a mess: unfair, inconsistent, costly and ineffective. Good luck to Edwin Stratton in his efforts to secure a rational, evidence-based, uniform, workable and humane policy that applies to all controlled and non-controlled drugs, without prejudice or discrimination"


The drug equality alliance (drugequalitydotorg) are pushing the hardest hitting legal arguments ever presented to challenge the legal system - its not in my view realistic to sue the media for msinformation - but it would be worth complaining to the independent press complaints authority.

[Uncle Ramrod]

Anyone have an idea when the case is due to go to court?

[cra$h]

Getting rid of those fucking "truth" commercials would be great. Is there anyone who has taken that crop of shit seriously?

[pappascowler]

and dont forget about frank.

[wisol]

It'd be xmas come early if you did that mate, love it. I don't know if it would work as a case though. Probably be thrown straight out. Besides its kind of traditional for the media to print complete bullshit innit.

[Uncle Ramrod]

Drugs legislation is a massive problem in terms of its abitrarily punative nature and this case is definitely a step in the right direction. The ONLY possibilty (in SWIMS view) for drug reform in this country is through the European Courts - the drugs issue is far to politicised in in this country for any substance to get a fair trial.

Occasionally voices of reason pop up (often from high level policemen who presumably realise the drugs war is not one that can be won) and a soundbyte makes its way to our ears through the media such as: cannabis use should be legalised or ecatacy use is not actually very dangerous.

Very often the people who state their opinions or the findings of their research that do not correlate with the governmental drug policy and named as 'irresponsible'. Since when was it irresponsible to tell people the truth or to voice a justified opinion?

Since the government decided (long time a ago now) that it is better (for them, of course) for you to believe a convenient lie (all scheduled drugs are bad/wrong and they have been right all along to stop you using them) rather than be allowed to develop your own informed opinion through unbiased access to the facts.

If you have a government in power who has its reputation staked the concept that in essence all recreational use of substances is morally corrupt (i.e. a sin) what chance does anyone have of having a rational debate about the real issues (health, economic etc) and impact a particular substance may have on its users (both recreational or medical).

The field for debate is narrow, the government is non-representative of the population, and with years of fear-mongering by the media it is hardly surprising that we are in this situation. We need real education about drugs (not governmental propaganda which is what we get) and that is going to mean dealing with facts not just disproportionately reported news stories about teenage ecstacy deaths.

Unfortunately, the climate for that type of fact-based (gasp!) eduaction about drugs doesn't not exist in the UK - we need a sea change in attitudes and the only place that will come from (in SWIMS view) is a legal precedent in Brussels where some facts get hammered out. I.e:

In cannabis so harmful that people can't be trusted to use it (see alcohol and tobacco for precedents)?
Does it infringe our human rights to tell us arbitrarily what we can and can't do?
Is cannabis legislation arbitrary?

SWIM can't wait to hear what happens (got a good feeling) - Edwin Stratton deserves a medal.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by cannabis-sam

In regards to the recent shite the media have talked about the harm of some drugs, would it theoretically be possible to bring a court case about. What legal contradictions would there be to manipulating facts in such a way.

I started this thread after reading a post by fnord saying sue there asses off and it got me thinking. If in a court of law the real evidence was presented and what the media said was presented side by side would there be a case.

It is possible to sue media for printing lies. At least case by case. Though the media brings no direct damage to the party by printing lies, so there are no damage claims to sue them for.

Court cases cost a lot of money. But if a sponsor is to be found(should be possible) and there are people who are willing to run such court cases then there is a good possibility that the media will rethink how often they disregard the truth.

There is much to gain, as media runs many countries. It makes and breaks politicians and their plans.

[Sunshine-Band]

Its already at Ct since Nov 5 2008 - its just very slow.....

[Uncle Ramrod]

So its been at the high court since 05/11/08?

[Sunshine-Band]

Thats correct, if you google Edwin Stratton or visit the drug equality alliance site you can see what has been done. There are further legal arguments being prepared to supplement the submitted documents, its worth reading the grounds as well.

[Uncle Ramrod]

Yep - thanks. I'd got that info already and read the grounds but didn't find specific mention of the dates of the high court case - holding my breath now...

[Uncle Ramrod]

Cripes - big surpise:

Edwin's application for permission to apply for Judicial Review has been refused on the grounds that :

1. 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
2. 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:

1. Edwin'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.
2. 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 Edwin'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 Edwin'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. Edwin has thus requested an oral hearing to address these glaring issues.

(Source: drugequality.org/cases)

[Sunshine-Band]

And the CPS are trying to commit him for trial before the high court process has even heared it.

Extract from his proposed submission to the Magistrates follows:

• Whilst it is correct to state that the Deputy High Court Judge refused the application for permission for a Judicial Review on the papers, it would be wrong to say that this in any way concludes the defendant’s Abuse of Process claim.

• The oral stage of the action already initiated is an integral part of the Judicial Review process, and indeed there is a further right of appeal available to the Court of Appeal, should the high court ultimately refuse permission to proceed. It is wrong in principle for the CPS to pre-empt the result of the oral hearing to the permission stage, or seek to undermine the legitimate and sole defence available to the defendant in this court at this stage in the proceedings.

• The Claimant has renewed his application and has had notification that the high court will advise him of a date for this hearing within 5 weeks. The CPS now aim to circumnavigate the processes of the high court on the basis that it is their view that the action is ill-conceived and doomed to fail.

• If this court were to grant the CPS application, it would fatally undermine the defendant's right to due process with respect to his Abuse of Process application. The court is asked to reject this request by the CPS absolutely.

• The CPS have urged the high court to refuse the defendant permission to proceed by arguing the ill-founded view that the magistrates’ court is the proper jurisdiction for such a hearing. The point about deferring to the jurisdiction of the High Court is exactly that this court is not the appropriate forum to judge the merits of this particular application.

• Even if it was reasonable in principle for this court to form the view that the defendant’s civil action was ill fated by merit of the initial refusal, one does not have to engage in any complex reasoning or legal argument to recognise that the preliminary refusal ought not to be given any weight in assessing the prospects for this case. This assertion vests in the fact that there are serious errors on the Notification of the Judges Order which are beyond contention; to wit, firstly the Order reveals the Deputy Judge to have wrongly identified the CPS to be the Defendant to the action, and secondly that he wrongly assumes that the substance of the claim to be that the CPS ought not to have brought this prosecution.

• The High Court is ‘seised of the matter’ and it is respectfully submitted that this court ought not to undermine any proceedings presently before the high court. The defendant asks this court continue to adjourn these proceedings until the full Judicial Review processes determine this matter in favour of Mr Stratton or otherwise.

[Amazing Andy]

They may consider that or other mitigating factors during sentencing, either your lawyer can do this, or almost always the judge will allow you to speak before sentencing especially if you or your lawyer requests to address the court. If you plea though, you will not get the chance to say this, or anything really.

[ConcertaXL]

It is not an offence to print a lie unless it defames a particular person. If you wrote say "Tokyo is in Germany" knowing it was wrong, that would be a lie but no-one would be personally affected so no damages are due. So claiming false things about a drug cannot really be pursued in court, unless the weed leaf/MDMA molecule can actually speak up and say how it has been made to suffer as a result. ("Hi, I'm Dr Chronic and I was uprooted, battered and burned by the Police. Miraculously I survived!")

[Sunshine-Band]

We won against the CPS application - adjourned to allow the judicial review process to continue

[cannabis-sam]

everyone arrested on drugs charges should make the point of fighting it to the end even if it means harsher penalties for themselves, if everyone tries to fight it, it will bring alot more awareness to drug law issues and may eventually bring change.

[sandoz1943]

The cause needs a Martyr. Unfortunatly anyone who would stand up againt the current laws in most cases are also breaking them by using. Anyone who was brave enough to stand up and anyone who would back them would be subjected to harrassment by the police and possibly set up railroaded through the courts and put in jail. Here in the US there are three states that could carry a president with thier electorial points. California, Florida, and New York. These three states make so much money off drugs being illegal and with the current state of greed I don't see it happening. When you are arrested for drugs they can take your bank accounts, car, house and then there are court costs, probation, drug counseling and such. This is a racket with alot of money exchanging hands. The greed and corruption runs too deep. Maybe someday but I dont feel it will be anytime soon here in the US. For now I can only hope there is some special hell for these greedy pricks. For the most part drugs are a victimless crime. What they are doing is not.

SWIM is leaving her beloved USA her head hung in shame and her heart filled with disgust and sorrow. She hopes to return some day to the America she remembers hearing about when she was a girl.

[Uncle Ramrod]

Maybe the edwin stratton case deserves its own thread? Might get more people interested...

[Sunshine-Band]

Originally Posted by Uncle Ramrod

Maybe the edwin stratton case deserves its own thread? Might get more people interested...

Yes, it deserves it, not the cold water treatment so many 'activists' feel obliged to trot out when someone tries a radical approach - this forces the judges to consider the propaganda of illicit drugs versus alcohol and tobacco

[julian]

In swim's opinion it would be very difficult to convince a judge that drug propaganda is in fact propaganda. A lot of judge's pride themselves on the prosecution of drug offenders. They choose to ignore the facts and continue to fill up the prison system with non violent offenders.

Swim thinks it would be a bad idea to do try and dispel media lies in one's defense. Saying, "Drug X is not that bad, look at these facts! And look here, the media lied about it!" is a terrible idea. In swim's experience with the American Judicial System, this will get you nowhere. Instead it will probably just piss off the judge and the prosecutor.

[Ilsa]

heard of gary webb?

video in which he explains how he broke the story on the CIA's drugs for guns program.

those who choose to fight this battle must be COMPLETELY dedicated...they give up everyting to reveal the truth, and are worthy of much respect for having done so. when the entire military-industrial complex is so intricately tiedt o control of the news media (which, sadly, many americans take to be truth), it takes the total self-sacrifice of many such people. webb died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head in 2004.

not to be apathetic--this can be done, people just need to know what they are up against and plan accordingly. when enough people unite behind a cause, it can and will find a way.