In the UK and other common law systems, the jury have the power to reach a verdict in direct contradiction to the law, known as jury equity this allows for just outcomes at the same time limiting the states ability to apply perverse laws. for example in Wilson, Kronlid, Needham, Zeltna, R v (1996), protesters were acquitted of causing criminal damage to fighter jets that were to be sold to Indonesia and would possibly be used against rebels wanting independence in East Timor. The jury accepted that their actions had served a greater good.
It has never been the law that all criminal actions be punished or even prosecuted, for the intent of this thread the interest in such decisions lies with the medical use of marijuana. At this point a clear distinction must be made between recreational and medical use, two entirely different things. I would also add that this thread in no way should be taken as legal advice but I hope that it does contain some useful information and at the same time inform potentail jurors of the power that they actually hold
Basically a jury can aquit someone who legitimately medicates with cannabis. There has even been a case where having an "intolerable itchy scrotum" was accept as a legitimate affliction requiring medical use of weed. What I have noticed is that such cases are quickly dropped by the media, almost like they want the public to forget and in cases, from what I have read the accused continues to grow.
some examples:
Blythe, R v (1998): D cultivated cannabis with intent to supply it to his wife who was dying with multiple sclerosis. D feared W might commit suicide and pleaded duress of circumstances.
Held: The trial judge told the jury that the defence (of duress) was not available in such a case. Nevertheless, the jury disregarded this instruction and found D not guilty.
Although he was found Guilty of possession and fined £100.
Davies, R v (1999) Crown Court: Juries - acquittal for 'medicinal’ cannabis grower: Colin Davies aged 42, from Stockport, vowed to continue growing, using and supplying cannabis after a jury at Manchester Crown Court acquitted him.
Mr Davies, a former joiner, broke his back in a 60ft fall from a bridge five years ago. He walks with a limp and is in constant pain. He says that conventional treatments prescribed by doctors prompted spasms and sickness, so he turned to cannabis in desperation and began cultivating the plants in his flat.
It was the second time in 13 months that Mr Davies, a father of two, had mounted a successful defence. At the first trial he was cleared of possessing the drug.
There is no guarantee however that such a defence will work and is dependant on jurisdiction/ jury selection and certain circumstances will aggravate the situation for example production with intent to supply, Fe if you have scales of any kind this may be argued. Also learn the line between production and personal where your at.That said the safest route is not to get caught in the first place. Take care
It has never been the law that all criminal actions be punished or even prosecuted, for the intent of this thread the interest in such decisions lies with the medical use of marijuana. At this point a clear distinction must be made between recreational and medical use, two entirely different things. I would also add that this thread in no way should be taken as legal advice but I hope that it does contain some useful information and at the same time inform potentail jurors of the power that they actually hold
Basically a jury can aquit someone who legitimately medicates with cannabis. There has even been a case where having an "intolerable itchy scrotum" was accept as a legitimate affliction requiring medical use of weed. What I have noticed is that such cases are quickly dropped by the media, almost like they want the public to forget and in cases, from what I have read the accused continues to grow.
some examples:
Blythe, R v (1998): D cultivated cannabis with intent to supply it to his wife who was dying with multiple sclerosis. D feared W might commit suicide and pleaded duress of circumstances.
Held: The trial judge told the jury that the defence (of duress) was not available in such a case. Nevertheless, the jury disregarded this instruction and found D not guilty.
Although he was found Guilty of possession and fined £100.
Davies, R v (1999) Crown Court: Juries - acquittal for 'medicinal’ cannabis grower: Colin Davies aged 42, from Stockport, vowed to continue growing, using and supplying cannabis after a jury at Manchester Crown Court acquitted him.
Mr Davies, a former joiner, broke his back in a 60ft fall from a bridge five years ago. He walks with a limp and is in constant pain. He says that conventional treatments prescribed by doctors prompted spasms and sickness, so he turned to cannabis in desperation and began cultivating the plants in his flat.
It was the second time in 13 months that Mr Davies, a father of two, had mounted a successful defence. At the first trial he was cleared of possessing the drug.
There is no guarantee however that such a defence will work and is dependant on jurisdiction/ jury selection and certain circumstances will aggravate the situation for example production with intent to supply, Fe if you have scales of any kind this may be argued. Also learn the line between production and personal where your at.That said the safest route is not to get caught in the first place. Take care
