Edwin Stratton challenge Government on drugs law....

[Dan]

Hi Eddie,
I would like to wish you great success on Wednesday (14th). I do really believe that freedom to use the herbs of the land could be now just round the corner thanks to your brave and courageous actions.

[Win]

Just realised that the date is soon approaching Ed, all the best for the 14th!

When the foundations, as in this law are wrong, the house wont hold weight, may they comprehend your argument!


Win

[Dan]

Do we know what time the hearing is on the 14th? I think it could be helpful if we all could focus our mental energy onto the outcome of the case at the right time.

[Alun]

Ed asked me to post this report

*Message begins*

My expectations from today's Crown Court appearance were pretty poor, after the High Court appeared to make a ruling on something I didn't argue! In the High Court ruling which denied me permission for Judicial Review on July 1st, Mr Justice Wilkie declared that my argument is legally hopeless, because the legislation (i.e. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) is not incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Those of you who have read my claim know that I claimed no such thing! My claim is that the Misuse of Drugs Act is fully compatible with the Human Rights Act, if it is administered in letter and spirit according to the will of Parliament. It is not, the government has distorted and misapplied it, which results in people like us being denied the protection of the law, while an analagous group are de facto exempted from the provisions of law (i.e. people concerned with alcohol and/or tobacco) because the Secretary of State arbitrarily, irrationally and unlawfully chooses which dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs to schedule in spite of relative harm. The discrimination takes the form of not treating like situations alike, and doing this without an objective and consistent basis, which threatens my human rights and the rule of law.

So today in Crown Court, represented by barrister Ben Cooper, through solicitor Richard Parry, we successfully moved to argue 'abuse of process', and Ben plans to fully deploy my now greatly-expanded legal arguments. Ben told the court that the discrimination is obvious, in that people are permitted to kill themselves with alcohol and tobacco, whereas I am prohibited from accessing a drug which allows me to live a better quality of health and life.

It's a remarkable achievement to secure this opportunity to argue the case for both medical and non-medical cannabis users. Bad news though - it's not until April 26th. Mind you, that gives us a lot of time to prepare, and there are preparations to be made:

In terms of medical discrimination, we need to prove cannabis has medical benefits for the court, and particularly with the symptoms I suffer: pain, nausea, stomach cramps and convulsions, depression, muscle spasticity and bone pains. The Judge was a good man, who expressed the necessity of the evidence to be persuasive, which I am confident it will be.

To this end, I want your help. I invite any and all peer-reviewed, credible evidence people know about, particularly with reference to the above symptoms. Then, please PM me with what you find, and I shall act as a clearing-house for the evidence, and create a dynamite evidence pack for the Court. I have no doubt that it will be conclusive - let's leave the Court no option on the evidence but to acknowledge the reality of cannabis.

Of particular mention is the point where the Judge fixed a gaze at the Crown Prosecutor, and said: "No doubt the prosecution, if they receive this evidence, will look very carefully at the public interest."

Amen to that - and if the prosecutor DOES look at the public interest honestly, and if the Judge follows suit, we all know the outcome... :)

*Message ends*
--------------------

[Eddiesilence]

Aha - thanks Alun, for posting the message! I'm able to log in again now!

Today is a good day...

Edit: Dan, I seem to have taken delivery of them vibes you sent; cheers, they worked a treat!

[Win]

Well done Edwin!

Win

[Scouser]

Good news Ed, but damn, the wait!

[Eddiesilence]

Yes, Scouser, it'll be a long time coming. One month short of the second anniversary of my arrest as it goes. The courts are extremely busy right now; either we're in the middle of a terrible crime wave or there are a lot of needless prosecutions. Let me check to see which it is: I just looked out of my window, but I didn't see any crime waves. Must be lots of needless prosecutions...

[Dan]

Aha - thanks Alun, for posting the message! I'm able to log in again now!

Today is a good day...

Edit: Dan, I seem to have taken delivery of them vibes you sent; cheers, they worked a treat!

I am glad to hear that things went well, I was sending out vibes and I am sure many others were as well.
A shame about the long wait till next April for the next hearing, but it gives plenty of time to come up with arguements SO watertight that even Rumpole of the Bailey could not argue against them.

[tonyf182000]

great bit of news hope it gets better and better

[Kraut]

You have already achieved great change Edwin, well done, but the postponement to April 26th., some 6 days before the general election, shows that they are unsure about the outcome. The timing of the trial looks like a burial to me, lets hope I am wrong and we can cut through all the election bravado flying about during the last week before the election.

What are the chances of attracting a high profile, friendly barrister to take over at this point and deliver the coup de grasse? would that be a good move and would it be worth your/our all while?

Good luck and relax for the jule period. (emoticon with on arm punching the air) kraut

[Eddiesilence]

Hi Kraut,

Thanks a million for your support and fine words! I don't think there's anything conspirational about the date of the hearing though, it appears that the courts are clogged with ASBOs and knife-carriers. Everyone in court yesterday morning (those on unconditional bail) was appointed a late-April trial date thanks to our clogged justice system.

The barrister who is to represent me is friendly indeed. Ben Cooper has a long-standing committment to helping those who are being persecuted unfairly for being concerned in the 'wrong' types of drugs, and has declared his intention to argue 'everything', all legal points made in my claim and more. We're in good hands - I say we, since this is our fight and not just mine!

Cheers!
Ed

[Scouser]

Ed: Check this out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8308825.stm

Harman warns over expenses probe

Harriet Harman has warned that Sir Thomas Legg's review of MPs' expenses must be based on the "rules and standards that obtained at the time".

"To do anything else would be arbitrary," the Commons leader said.
...

The leader of the House of Commons making it known that we can't be having arbitrary decisions affecting people.

How very nice of her to add weight to the 'basis' of your claim, that Cannabis prohibition is an arbitrary one. :)

[Don2]

It would seem to me that this case is almost identical to Eds which IMO gives on oportunity to widen the debate - whatever.

posting.php?mode=reply&f=6&t=15820

Don

[All2Pot]

Unfortunately although the it was found that it was personal use for medical benefit, he was still found guilty and fined.
This was mitigation after conviction and definately not a precident.