I wonder if any legal eagles in uk.legal would like to comment on this?

Edwin Stratton refused a caution for cultivating cannabis and is using the
below as a defence.

From the Transform blog:-

Skeleton Argument for Edwin Stratton


1. The defendant client objects to this indictment under s7 of the
Indictment Act 1915 due to an executive abuse of power that threatens his
basic human rights -and the rule of law. Cf. Archbold §1-191 (j) and 4-47
et seq.

2. Accordingly the defendant seeks either 1) to stay the indictment; 2) an
adjournment of these proceedings so he can pursue the matter in the
Divisional Court; or 3) For this court to decline jurisdiction and require
the matter to be pursued in the Divisional Court. Cf. R. v. Central
Criminal Court, ex p. Randle and Pottle, 92 Cr.App.R. 323, DC; R v
Belmarsh Magistrates ex parte Watts [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 188 at 195;
Archbold § 1-192 & 4-50.

3. The abuse:

a. The defendant believes that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 (“the
Act”) is being applied to him in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner
based on historical and cultural factors that lack a consistent and
objective basis contrary to Article 14 and within the ambit of other
convention rights. This denies equal protection to the defendant, alleged
to be engaged in property activities with “controlled drugs”, as
defined by s2(1)(a) of the Act, with respect to analogous persons engaged
in the identical property activities with the dangerous or otherwise
harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco.

b. The Government’s Position:

"The Government's policy is and has been to regulate drugs which are
classified as illegal through the 1971 Act and to regulate the use of
alcohol and tobacco separately. This policy sensibly recognises that
alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and can have anti-social effects,
but recognises also that consumption of alcohol and tobacco is
historically embedded in society and that responsible use of alcohol and
tobacco is both possible and commonplace".

c. The Government’s position admits discrimination on the grounds of
legal status and property within the ambits of Article 1 of the First
Protocol, “protection of property”, Article 8 respect for private
life, inter alia. More, the Government’s position includes errors of law
and fact.

d. Unjustifiable discrimination: The Act is interpreted and implemented
unequally with respect to consumers, producers and traders of (a) harmful
drugs used by minorities, the drugs currently controlled under the Act,
and (b) equally harmful drugs used by the majority, alcohol and tobacco,
arbitrarily excluded from the Act. The Act therefore unjustifiably
discriminates between those in the same position, those who consume or
trade equally harmful drugs. Cf. A & Others v SSHD [2004] UK HL 56 at 46
et seq; Pretty v UK [2002] 35 EHRR 1 at para 77: “Strong arguments based
on the rule of law could be raised against any claim by the executive to
exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the
law.”

e. Failure to justifiably discriminate: regulations for the non-medical
use of those drugs excluded from the Act, alcohol and tobacco, distinguish
between reasonably safe, responsible drug use and trade, and unreasonably
harmful, irresponsible drug use, production and trade. Regulations for the
non-medical use of those drugs included by the Act fail to make this
justifiable distinction, instead applying a blanket prohibition of all
property rights of possession, supply, production and export/import. The
Act also fails to justifiably distinguish two distinct forms of
unreasonably harmful use, production or trade: (a) use or trade
unreasonably harmful to the consumer or trader alone, ‘voluntary
risks’, and (b) use or trade unreasonably harmful to others,
‘involuntary risks’. Voluntary risks do not infringe human rights
while involuntary risks do. The Act therefore fails to justifiably
discriminate between those in different situations. Cf. Thlimmenos v
Greece [2000] 31 EHRR 411 para 44: “The right not to be discriminated
against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is
also violated when States without an objective and reasonable
justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are
significantly different.”

4. As a result of this abuse by the executive a fair trial is not
possible. The Defendant’s remedy lies with the Divisional Court.

CPS Guidance – Abuse of Process - Misuse of Process - f. Unconscionable
behaviour by the executive This category of the doctrine of abuse is more
exceptional than those described above. It arises from the duty of the
High Court (first articulated in the case of Bennett v Horseferry
Magistrates Court) to oversee executive action so as to prevent the State
taking advantage of acts that threaten either basic human rights or the
rule of law (including international law).

Applications for a stay based on this ground cannot be determined in any
tribunal below the High Court because they involve the judiciary
exercising a supervisory function over the actions of the executive
(Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, per Lord Griffiths at 152
H-J). Where the defence wishes to make such an application at the
beginning or as a preliminary to trial, the proper procedure is for the
instant proceedings to be adjourned and for the defence to commence
proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that continuing the
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process.

In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York [1949],
para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a duty to prevent
the abuse of political power by upholding the right to equality before the
law:

“There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which
officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.
Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as
to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will
apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might
be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no
better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws
be equal in operation.”

More here:
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/10/government-challenged-on-drugs-law.html

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6llup4Fd47jqU1@mid.individual.net...
>I wonder if any legal eagles in uk.legal would like to comment on this?
>
> Edwin Stratton refused a caution for cultivating cannabis and is using the
> below as a defence.
>
><snipped>
>
All power to him but the system is set, far too many jobs rely on the 
terrorism used against some citizens.

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6llup4Fd47jqU1@mid.individual.net...
>I wonder if any legal eagles in uk.legal would like to comment on this?
>
> Edwin Stratton refused a caution for cultivating cannabis and is using the
> below as a defence.
>

SNIP

It will as the saying goes be "laughed out of court".

> In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York [1949],
> para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a duty to prevent
> the abuse of political power by upholding the right to equality before the
> law:
>
> “There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
> unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which
> officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.
> Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as
> to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will
> apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might
> be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no
> better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws
> be equal in operation.”

Is there any point in quoting US judgements in a UK court ? Have the
US courts ever taken any notice of a post-1776 ruling in the UK ?

Jethro wrote:
>> In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York
>> [1949], para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a
>> duty to prevent the abuse of political power by upholding the right
>> to equality before the law:
>>
>> “There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
>> unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law
>> which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed
>> generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so
>> effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a
>> few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the
>> political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger
>> numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure
>> that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in
>> operation.”
>
> Is there any point in quoting US judgements in a UK court ?

Yes, they're both common-law jurisdictions, and it happened earlier this 
year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davis

>Have the
> US courts ever taken any notice of a post-1776 ruling in the UK ?

Quite possibly, at least for extradition purposes, but an example escapes me 
for now.

On 15 Oct, 16:11, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
> Jethro wrote:
> >> In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York
> >> [1949], para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a
> >> duty to prevent the abuse of political power by upholding the right
> >> to equality before the law:
>
> >> “There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
> >> unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law
> >> which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed
> >> generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so
> >> effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a
> >> few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the
> >> political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger
> >> numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure
> >> that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in
> >> operation.”
>
> > Is there any point in quoting US judgements in a UK court ?
>
> Yes, they're both common-law jurisdictions, and it happened earlier this
> year:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davis
>

Thank you for that. Most interesting ... so it's quite permissible to
cite other countries judgments and reasoning in framing an appeal or a
motion ?

Jethro wrote:
> On 15 Oct, 16:11, "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote:
>> Jethro wrote:
>>>> In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York
>>>> [1949], para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a
>>>> duty to prevent the abuse of political power by upholding the right
>>>> to equality before the law:
>>
>>>> “There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary
>>>> and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of
>>>> law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed
>>>> generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action
>>>> so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only
>>>> a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the
>>>> political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger
>>>> numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure
>>>> that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in
>>>> operation.”
>>
>>> Is there any point in quoting US judgements in a UK court ?
>>
>> Yes, they're both common-law jurisdictions, and it happened earlier
>> this year:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davis
>>
>
> Thank you for that. Most interesting ... so it's quite permissible to
> cite other countries judgments and reasoning in framing an appeal or a
> motion ?

Yes, but it's only what is called "persuasive authority" as one country's 
judiciary cannot bind another's.

"Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6llup4Fd47jqU1@mid.individual.net...
>I wonder if any legal eagles in uk.legal would like to comment on this?
>
> Edwin Stratton refused a caution for cultivating cannabis and is using the
> below as a defence.
>
> From the Transform blog:-
>
> Skeleton Argument for Edwin Stratton
>
>
> 1. The defendant client objects to this indictment under s7 of the
> Indictment Act 1915 due to an executive abuse of power that threatens his
> basic human rights -and the rule of law. Cf. Archbold §1-191 (j) and 4-47
> et seq.
>
> 2. Accordingly the defendant seeks either 1) to stay the indictment; 2) an
> adjournment of these proceedings so he can pursue the matter in the
> Divisional Court; or 3) For this court to decline jurisdiction and require
> the matter to be pursued in the Divisional Court. Cf. R. v. Central
> Criminal Court, ex p. Randle and Pottle, 92 Cr.App.R. 323, DC; R v
> Belmarsh Magistrates ex parte Watts [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 188 at 195;
> Archbold § 1-192 & 4-50.
>
> 3. The abuse:
>
> a. The defendant believes that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 (“the
> Act”) is being applied to him in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner
> based on historical and cultural factors that lack a consistent and
> objective basis contrary to Article 14 and within the ambit of other
> convention rights. This denies equal protection to the defendant, alleged
> to be engaged in property activities with “controlled drugs”, as
> defined by s2(1)(a) of the Act, with respect to analogous persons engaged
> in the identical property activities with the dangerous or otherwise
> harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco.
>
> b. The Government’s Position:
>
> "The Government's policy is and has been to regulate drugs which are
> classified as illegal through the 1971 Act and to regulate the use of
> alcohol and tobacco separately. This policy sensibly recognises that
> alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and can have anti-social effects,
> but recognises also that consumption of alcohol and tobacco is
> historically embedded in society and that responsible use of alcohol and
> tobacco is both possible and commonplace".
>
> c. The Government’s position admits discrimination on the grounds of
> legal status and property within the ambits of Article 1 of the First
> Protocol, “protection of property”, Article 8 respect for private
> life, inter alia. More, the Government’s position includes errors of law
> and fact.
>
> d. Unjustifiable discrimination: The Act is interpreted and implemented
> unequally with respect to consumers, producers and traders of (a) harmful
> drugs used by minorities, the drugs currently controlled under the Act,
> and (b) equally harmful drugs used by the majority, alcohol and tobacco,
> arbitrarily excluded from the Act. The Act therefore unjustifiably
> discriminates between those in the same position, those who consume or
> trade equally harmful drugs. Cf. A & Others v SSHD [2004] UK HL 56 at 46
> et seq; Pretty v UK [2002] 35 EHRR 1 at para 77: “Strong arguments based
> on the rule of law could be raised against any claim by the executive to
> exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the
> law.”
>
> e. Failure to justifiably discriminate: regulations for the non-medical
> use of those drugs excluded from the Act, alcohol and tobacco, distinguish
> between reasonably safe, responsible drug use and trade, and unreasonably
> harmful, irresponsible drug use, production and trade. Regulations for the
> non-medical use of those drugs included by the Act fail to make this
> justifiable distinction, instead applying a blanket prohibition of all
> property rights of possession, supply, production and export/import. The
> Act also fails to justifiably distinguish two distinct forms of
> unreasonably harmful use, production or trade: (a) use or trade
> unreasonably harmful to the consumer or trader alone, ‘voluntary
> risks’, and (b) use or trade unreasonably harmful to others,
> ‘involuntary risks’. Voluntary risks do not infringe human rights
> while involuntary risks do. The Act therefore fails to justifiably
> discriminate between those in different situations. Cf. Thlimmenos v
> Greece [2000] 31 EHRR 411 para 44: “The right not to be discriminated
> against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is
> also violated when States without an objective and reasonable
> justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are
> significantly different.”
>
> 4. As a result of this abuse by the executive a fair trial is not
> possible. The Defendant’s remedy lies with the Divisional Court.
>
> CPS Guidance – Abuse of Process - Misuse of Process - f. Unconscionable
> behaviour by the executive This category of the doctrine of abuse is more
> exceptional than those described above. It arises from the duty of the
> High Court (first articulated in the case of Bennett v Horseferry
> Magistrates Court) to oversee executive action so as to prevent the State
> taking advantage of acts that threaten either basic human rights or the
> rule of law (including international law).
>
> Applications for a stay based on this ground cannot be determined in any
> tribunal below the High Court because they involve the judiciary
> exercising a supervisory function over the actions of the executive
> (Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, per Lord Griffiths at 152
> H-J). Where the defence wishes to make such an application at the
> beginning or as a preliminary to trial, the proper procedure is for the
> instant proceedings to be adjourned and for the defence to commence
> proceedings in the High Court for a declaration that continuing the
> prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process.
>
> In the US Supreme Court (Railway Express Agency Inc v New York [1949],
> para 112), Justice Jackson explained why the courts have a duty to prevent
> the abuse of political power by upholding the right to equality before the
> law:
>
> “There is no more effective practical guarantee against arbitrary and
> unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which
> officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.
> Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as
> to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will
> apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might
> be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no
> better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws
> be equal in operation.”
>
> More here:
> http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/10/government-challenged-on-drugs-law.html
>
> -- 
> Dr John Watson
> Baker Street
>

Update:-

LEYTON: Cannabis campaigner granted pre-trial hearing
4:25pm Wednesday 14th October 2009

By Carl Brown


A DISABLED man charged with growing cannabis has today been granted 
permission to argue in a pre-trial hearing that his prosecution for 
producing the drug is discriminatory.
Edwin Stratton, 43, of High Road, Leyton, suffers from a gluten allergy and 
claims to need cannabis to alleviate his symptoms.

Appearing at Snaresbrook Crown Court today, Mr Stratton secured permission 
to argue that the courts' application of the Misuse of Drugs is 
discriminatory because other drugs, such as cigarettes and alcohol are 
legal.

MR Stratton has already had a request for a judicial review turned down.

But at Snaresbrook Crown Court today Judge Peter Birts QC decided to allow 
Mr Stratton a day to put forward an abuse of process argument.

Mr Stratton entered a provisional plea of not guilty, which will only stand 
if Justice Birts rules that there was not an abuse of process.

Mr Stratton's argument will be heard by Justice Birts at Snaresbrook Crown 
Court on April 26.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/4682309.LEYTON___Cannabis_campaigner_granted_pre_trial_hearing/