An appeal will certainly succeed here (see the comment to the article)..


Men ran online cannabis business
Friday, May 15, 2009, 07:30

1 reader has commented on this story. Click here to read their views.

TWO men have been convicted of marketing and selling cannabis-growing
equipment on the internet.

Jason Kirby and Michael Korn sold literature, growing systems and other
equipment for the cultivation of cannabis plants.

The pair were tracked down by Derbyshire police on the back of a case last
year involving two other men who were charged with running a city
hydroponics business.

Police said paperwork found in this investigation alerted them to Kirby's
internet business, Thermal Grow UK, being run from Cambridgeshire, that
had an annual turnover of about £200,000.

Derby Crown Court heard the equipment "was clearly intended to be used by
those who were going to be growing drugs".

Kirby, 38, had a warehouse in Cambridgeshire where he stored the
equipment, which included a hydroponics growing system called Chameleon.

"It was a disguised integrated growing system, which looked like a
wardrobe," said Andrew Peet, prosecuting.

He added that some of the company's foil – material necessary for
growing plants – had a helicopter logo and a warning that if people used
any other material they would be sent to jail.

Mr Peet said this indicated it was for growing cannabis plants, as they
were suggesting the people would not want to be detected by the police.

Korn, 33, of Webb Street, Newstead Village, Nottingham, helped advertise
the products.

Mr Peet said: "Mr Korn is in rather a unique position – albeit he sold a
minimal amount of equipment. His main role was as a web designer to
advertise."

Korn, who is studying for a degree at Nottingham Trent University, and
Kirby, of New Road, Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, admitted conspiring with
another to incite the production of cannabis for 11 months between 2005
and 2006.

Stephen Ferguson, in mitigation, said Kirby had started his business
legitimately. He added: "Ironically, if Mr Kirby had sold the same
equipment slightly differently he would not have transgressed the criminal
law. He crossed the line and that is why he's here today."

Clive Stockwell, for Korn, said the defendant admitted the offence as soon
as he was interviewed by police and greatly regretted his involvement.

Kirby was jailed for 14 months and Korn was given a 10-month sentence,
suspended for two years, and ordered to do 280 hours of unpaid work.

After the hearing, Steve Holme, Drug Market Mapping manager for Derbyshire
police, said: "Although the equipment used to grow cannabis can also be
used to grow other plants, suppliers will almost inevitably be approached
by people wishing to break the law by growing cannabis for their own use
or on a commercial basis.

"These convictions show that the police will not hesitate to prosecute
those suppliers who do so."

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Men-ran-online-cannabis-business/article-993711-detail/article.html


-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> An appeal will certainly succeed here (see the comment to the
> article)..

I don't doubt that the CPS will have considered the matter very carefully 
before bringing these charges, and would have been aware of the statement 
made by LCJ Lord Phillips. They must have been confident in their action. 
Also, one would hope that the defendents defence counsel would have been 
aware of any facts that would render the prosecution wrong.

The two defendents have pleaded guilty and therefore, ISTM, cannot appeal 
against conviction.

Ret.

Dr John Watson wrote:
> incite the production of cannabis 

Since when did this become an offence?

Airmax wrote:
> "Maria"  wrote in message 
> news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> incite the production of cannabis
>>
>> Since when did this become an offence?
> 
> 
> At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?

Oh ok - I've never heard of it (the former that is, not the latter 
obviously)

"Maria"  wrote in message 
news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> incite the production of cannabis
>
> Since when did this become an offence?


At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?

In message , Maria 
 writes
>Airmax wrote:
>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>>news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>> incite the production of cannabis
>>>
>>> Since when did this become an offence?
>>   At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?
>
>Oh ok - I've never heard of it (the former that is, not the latter 
>obviously)

Surely there is a general principle that if doing something is illegal, 
then incitement to do it is also illegal? I doubt if you need a parallel 
set of laws to cover incitement.
-- 
Ian

On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:56:38 +0100, Ian Jackson screamed:

> In message , Maria
>  writes
>>Airmax wrote:
>>> "Maria"  wrote in message
>>>news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>>> incite the production of cannabis
>>>>
>>>> Since when did this become an offence?
>>>   At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?
>>
>>Oh ok - I've never heard of it (the former that is, not the latter
>>obviously)

> Surely there is a general principle that if doing something is illegal,
> then incitement to do it is also illegal? I doubt if you need a parallel
> set of laws to cover incitement.


What a load of nonsense. For example, are Amazon inciting production of 
cannabis?

http://tinyurl.com/pk6kzf (opens link to amazon.co.uk)

Mike P

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message , Maria 
>  writes
>> Airmax wrote:
>>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>>> news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>>> incite the production of cannabis
>>>>
>>>> Since when did this become an offence?
>>>   At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?
>>
>> Oh ok - I've never heard of it (the former that is, not the latter 
>> obviously)
> 
> Surely there is a general principle that if doing something is illegal, 
> then incitement to do it is also illegal? I doubt if you need a parallel 
> set of laws to cover incitement.

I wouldn't have made that presumption. If you live in a country where 
people are considered sovereign and able to make up their own minds and 
be responsible for their own decisions, then all 'incitement' law is 
rubbish. Of course for a moment there, I forgot where I am living...

Anyway, to be clear, I thought the only incitement laws were specific 
(e.g. terrorism, hatred), otherwise I would have thought there would 
have been a lot more convictions for a lot more things than there have been!

Maria wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message , Maria 
>>  writes
>>> Airmax wrote:
>>>> "Maria"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
>>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>>>> incite the production of cannabis
>>>>>
>>>>> Since when did this become an offence?
>>>>   At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?
>>>
>>> Oh ok - I've never heard of it (the former that is, not the latter 
>>> obviously)
>>
>> Surely there is a general principle that if doing something is 
>> illegal, then incitement to do it is also illegal? I doubt if you need 
>> a parallel set of laws to cover incitement.
> 
> I wouldn't have made that presumption. If you live in a country where 
> people are considered sovereign and able to make up their own minds and 
> be responsible for their own decisions, then all 'incitement' law is 
> rubbish. Of course for a moment there, I forgot where I am living...
> 
> Anyway, to be clear, I thought the only incitement laws were specific 
> (e.g. terrorism, hatred), otherwise I would have thought there would 
> have been a lot more convictions for a lot more things than there have 
> been!

And I see that I am completely incorrect.

'Incitement

It is an offence to persuade, encourage, or pressure someone else to 
commit a crime.

It is no defence if the crime that was incited is not ultimately 
committed. However, if the crime is committed the inciter may also be 
charged as an accomplice for counselling (see the ‘Counselling’ section) 
a crime.

It is possible to indirectly incite a crime and the incitement does not 
have to be to a particular individual (although it can be) but can also 
be to the world at large.

It is a defence if what is incited is impossible to carry out (for 
example if there is an incitement to kill someone who is already dead) 
but it is not a defence to say that what was being incited could not 
have happened because there was not sufficient means to do so (for 
example if there is an incitement to shoot someone it is no defence to 
claim that no-one had a gun to do the shooting).'

http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dt/browse/law/index.cfm?fuseaction=ViewContent&sid=75984&aid=35054

On 17 May, 10:18, Maria  wrote:
> Maria wrote:
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> In message , Maria
> >>  writes
> >>> Airmax wrote:
> >>>> "Maria"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:m-GdnYUC74hyV5LXnZ2dnUVZ8tZi4p2d@bt.com...
> >>>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
> >>>>>> incite the production of cannabis
>
> >>>>> Since when did this become an offence?
> >>>>   At the same time it came an offence to produce cannabis ?
>
> >>> Oh ok - I've never heard of it (the former that is, not the latter
> >>> obviously)
>
> >> Surely there is a general principle that if doing something is
> >> illegal, then incitement to do it is also illegal? I doubt if you need
> >> a parallel set of laws to cover incitement.
>
> > I wouldn't have made that presumption. If you live in a country where
> > people are considered sovereign and able to make up their own minds and
> > be responsible for their own decisions, then all 'incitement' law is
> > rubbish. Of course for a moment there, I forgot where I am living...
>
> > Anyway, to be clear, I thought the only incitement laws were specific
> > (e.g. terrorism, hatred), otherwise I would have thought there would
> > have been a lot more convictions for a lot more things than there have
> > been!
>
> And I see that I am completely incorrect.
>
> 'Incitement
>
> It is an offence to persuade, encourage, or pressure someone else to
> commit a crime.
>
> It is no defence if the crime that was incited is not ultimately
> committed. However, if the crime is committed the inciter may also be
> charged as an accomplice for counselling (see the ‘Counselling’ section)
> a crime.
>
> It is possible to indirectly incite a crime and the incitement does not
> have to be to a particular individual (although it can be) but can also
> be to the world at large.
>
> It is a defence if what is incited is impossible to carry out (for
> example if there is an incitement to kill someone who is already dead)
> but it is not a defence to say that what was being incited could not
> have happened because there was not sufficient means to do so (for
> example if there is an incitement to shoot someone it is no defence to
> claim that no-one had a gun to do the shooting).'
>
> http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dt/browse/law/index.cfm?fuseaction=Vie...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Depends on exactly how their website ran ... a lot of websites which
provide information on various subjects have extremely clear
disclaimers that the information provided is for educational purposes,
and people reading it are reminded to comply with the laws in their
own country, which is guess provides a defence that they were not
encouraging anyone to act on it. A lot of online grow shops explain
how their equipment can be used to grow tomatoes hydroponically, and
how to get the best tasting and biggest yielding tomatoes possible.

I suspect the defendants were less careful, and it was felt their
actions did amount to incitement.

If this law were to be rigourously applied then 90% of films and TV
would become illegal.

Noticed at Sun, 17 May 2009 09:23:34 +0100: Ret. informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> An appeal will certainly succeed here (see the comment to the
>> article)..
> 
> I don't doubt that the CPS will have considered the matter very
> carefully before bringing these charges, and would have been aware of
> the statement made by LCJ Lord Phillips. They must have been confident
> in their action. Also, one would hope that the defendents defence
> counsel would have been aware of any facts that would render the
> prosecution wrong.

Yes, that did occur to me. However, the LCJ does seem unequivocal:

"But in the appeal court judgment, published last week, Lord Phillips, the
lord chief justice, ruled that the offences of conspiracy to aid and abet
and counsel the production of cannabis were "unknown to law" and had to be
quashed. "There can be no conviction for aiding and abetting, counselling
or procuring, unless the offence is shown to have occurred," he said. "It
is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure the
commission of an offence."

Taken from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/14/drugsandalcohol.law

*It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure the
commission of an offence*

> The two defendents have pleaded guilty and therefore, ISTM, cannot
> appeal against conviction.

They cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist, however they
pled.


> Ret.

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Noticed at Sun, 17 May 2009 10:18:07 +0100: Maria informed us:

> It is an offence to persuade, encourage, or pressure someone else to 
> commit a crime.

Lord Chief Justice: It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet,
counsel or procure the commission of an offence

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Sun, 17 May 2009 09:23:34 +0100: Ret. informed us:
>
>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>> An appeal will certainly succeed here (see the comment to the
>>> article)..
>>
>> I don't doubt that the CPS will have considered the matter very
>> carefully before bringing these charges, and would have been aware of
>> the statement made by LCJ Lord Phillips. They must have been
>> confident in their action. Also, one would hope that the defendents
>> defence counsel would have been aware of any facts that would render
>> the prosecution wrong.
>
> Yes, that did occur to me. However, the LCJ does seem unequivocal:
>
> "But in the appeal court judgment, published last week, Lord
> Phillips, the lord chief justice, ruled that the offences of
> conspiracy to aid and abet and counsel the production of cannabis
> were "unknown to law" and had to be quashed. "There can be no
> conviction for aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring, unless
> the offence is shown to have occurred," he said. "It is not an
> offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure the commission
> of an offence."
>
> Taken from
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/14/drugsandalcohol.law
>
> *It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure
> the commission of an offence*
>
>> The two defendents have pleaded guilty and therefore, ISTM, cannot
>> appeal against conviction.
>
> They cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist, however they
> pled.
.
I think the relevant passage is: "There can be no conviction for aiding and 
abetting, counselling or procuring, unless the offence is shown to have 
occurred,"

ISTM, that what the LCJ is saying is that there can be no conspiracy to aid, 
abet, counsel or procure the production of cannabis - *unless* the offence 
of producing cannabis has occurred.

In this recent case it may well be that the police had evidence that the 
material supplied by these defendants *had* been used to produce cannabis - 
and hence the conspiracy offence was complete?

Ret.

Dr John Watson wrote:
> Noticed at Sun, 17 May 2009 10:18:07 +0100: Maria informed us:
>
>> It is an offence to persuade, encourage, or pressure someone else to
>> commit a crime.
>
> Lord Chief Justice: It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet,
> counsel or procure the commission of an offence

But you missed off the rest of what he said:

"There can be no conviction for aiding and abetting, counselling or 
procuring, unless the offence is shown to have occurred,"

ISTM, that what the LCJ is saying is that there can be no conspiracy to aid,
abet, counsel or procure the production of cannabis - unless the offence
of producing cannabis has occurred.

In this recent case it may well be that the police had evidence that the
material supplied by these defendants had been used to produce cannabis -
and hence the conspiracy offence was complete?

Ret.

In message , Dr John Watson 
 writes
>Noticed at Sun, 17 May 2009 10:18:07 +0100: Maria informed us:
>
>> It is an offence to persuade, encourage, or pressure someone else to
>> commit a crime.
>
>Lord Chief Justice: It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet,
>counsel or procure the commission of an offence
>
Well, if it isn't, then it certainly SHOULD be!!

[I find it very hard to believe that it isn't.]
-- 
Ian

On Sun, 17 May 2009 08:54:59 +0100, Dr John Watson
 wrote:

>An appeal will certainly succeed here (see the comment to the article)..
>
>
>Men ran online cannabis business
>Friday, May 15, 2009, 07:30
>
>1 reader has commented on this story. Click here to read their views.
>
>TWO men have been convicted of marketing and selling cannabis-growing
>equipment on the internet.
>
>Jason Kirby and Michael Korn sold literature, growing systems and other
>equipment for the cultivation of cannabis plants.

Or, could be used to grow some nice indoor grown salad.  2 quid a bag
in M&S, a tenth of that price when grown under lights.

>"It was a disguised integrated growing system, which looked like a
>wardrobe," said Andrew Peet, prosecuting.

A vertical growing system that means you can grow all the salad you
need in a very small area, you have control of humidity, CO2,
temperature, light levels.   I'd love a system like that, been playing
with a kitchen windowsill design myself but the economy of scale
doesn't exist at that level to support salads seven days a week all
the year round.


--

Noticed at Mon, 18 May 2009 17:06:36 +0100: Ret. informed us:

> Dr John Watson wrote:
>> Noticed at Sun, 17 May 2009 09:23:34 +0100: Ret. informed us:
>>
>>> Dr John Watson wrote:
>>>> An appeal will certainly succeed here (see the comment to the
>>>> article)..
>>>
>>> I don't doubt that the CPS will have considered the matter very
>>> carefully before bringing these charges, and would have been aware of
>>> the statement made by LCJ Lord Phillips. They must have been
>>> confident in their action. Also, one would hope that the defendents
>>> defence counsel would have been aware of any facts that would render
>>> the prosecution wrong.
>>
>> Yes, that did occur to me. However, the LCJ does seem unequivocal:
>>
>> "But in the appeal court judgment, published last week, Lord
>> Phillips, the lord chief justice, ruled that the offences of
>> conspiracy to aid and abet and counsel the production of cannabis
>> were "unknown to law" and had to be quashed. "There can be no
>> conviction for aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring, unless
>> the offence is shown to have occurred," he said. "It is not an
>> offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure the commission
>> of an offence."
>>
>> Taken from
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/14/drugsandalcohol.law
>>
>> *It is not an offence to attempt to aid and abet, counsel or procure
>> the commission of an offence*
>>
>>> The two defendents have pleaded guilty and therefore, ISTM, cannot
>>> appeal against conviction.
>>
>> They cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist, however they
>> pled.
> .
> I think the relevant passage is: "There can be no conviction for aiding and 
> abetting, counselling or procuring, unless the offence is shown to have 
> occurred,"

Yes, I believe you're right.

> ISTM, that what the LCJ is saying is that there can be no conspiracy to aid, 
> abet, counsel or procure the production of cannabis - *unless* the offence 
> of producing cannabis has occurred.
> 
> In this recent case it may well be that the police had evidence that the 
> material supplied by these defendants *had* been used to produce cannabis - 
> and hence the conspiracy offence was complete?

Is the court transcript available online?

Amazon sell lots of books relating to cannabis cultivation - if one turns
up in a bust, I hope we'll see Amazon raided. Or is it only small "head"
shops that get busted and not multinational businesses?

> Ret.
-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street