Edwin Stratton - Case Progress

[Eddiesilence]

Hi;

I thought I'd give an update about what's going on with my prosecution for growing cannabis, which I grew for medical reasons (although the defence I am running applies equally to recreational use. So feel free to consider this if you're in a similar situation to me and I will help you any way I can.)

My first court date was October 9th, in which I served notice that I intended to challenge the prosecution as an abuse of process, requesting an adjournment to seek permission for a Judicial Review (legally, this is called a 'Mackeson' application). This adjournment was granted, after some incredulity from court staff.

A Judicial Review is a High Court procedure wherein judges consider the legitimacy of a decision made by a public official. These decisions can be related to anything decided by public officials, such as the decision to deport a foreign national, or the decision to allocate a council house. In my case, the decision I am challenging is the decision to stand me for trial for producing cannabis.

Any decision made by a public official must fulfill three criteria: it must be lawful, it must be rational, and it must be procedurally fair. In each of those three categories, I believe there are grounds for challenging the prosecution of cannabis users, based on the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

It is my contention that the Act has not been followed or understood by successive governments, and as a result, millions of people are now dead from tobacco and alcohol partly from those dangerous drugs being under-regulated, and countless thousands have been imprisoned and their families torn apart due to the over-regulation of cannabis and other less harmful drugs than currently legal alternatives. This is irrational. But, the Misuse of Drugs Act was designed to evolve drugs policy in keeping with new evidence: but while new evidence has been abundant for the past thirty-seven years, successive governments have not tied this evidence to drugs policy. This denies me due process, since I have the legitimate expectation that cannabis should not be unlawful to possess according to scientific evidence which shows that it is orders of magnitude less harmful than tobacco and alcohol - this is what would happen were the Misuse of Drugs Act actually applied in spirit and letter - and so I believe this means that the actions of government are not procedurally fair. It can be also shown that the government does not understand the primary legislation concerning drugs, which means that government acts illegally. So the bottom line is that I don't think their decision to put me on trial can be upheld, and I request that the High Court quash my indictment and prohibit the courts from prosecuting me. Victory would mean, at the least, a reinterpretation of primary legislation.

Yesterday I applied to the High Court for permission to go to Judicial Review, including my draft statement of claims, and some medical evidence to demonstrate that I act in good faith. Today, I had an appearance at the Magistrates' Court, at which I served the court and the Crown Prosecution Service with copies of my claim. Because the High Court is now 'seized of the matter', as they say, the Magistrates Court, being a junior forum, cannot proceed. So the Magistrates declined jurisdiction and adjourned until 8th January, at 9.45. The next stage is to learn whether the High Court grants me permission for Judicial Review. I believe my case is very strong, and the argument is solid, so I am hopeful that permission will be granted.

Meanwhile, Release and the legal team at the Drug Equality Alliance are providing the most fantastic support, (as have you here on UK420), and I really can't thank them enough, so instead of thanking them, I am committing myself to passing on the positivity by helping you out if you find yourself in a similar situation!

Feel free to ask me anything, and if I don't know I can find out. It's important for those of us going through the legal mill to share our experiences - it provides the people who follow us through the courts with a valuable rear-view mirror, so I shall provide as much information as you require. You only have to ask! And if you require a full copy of my superb legal argument, PM me and I shall email it forthwith.

Love, respect and PEACE!

Edwin

[Guest roger]

Fantastic work, well done!

[solarchild]

All the best Eddie. Much respect for you man.

[Eddiesilence]

Cheers Roger! And many thanks solarchild!

One thing I neglected to point out, is that I am also claiming that the government acts in contravention of the Human Rights Act. I have a full and complete claim under Human Rights legislation as well as under common law; which encompasses Article 14 – Prohibition against Discrimination; Protocol 1, Article 1 - Respect for Property; Article 9 – Freedom of Thought; Article 8 – Respect for Private Life; Article 6 – Due process and Fair Trial Rights, and Article 5 – Liberty.

PM if you want the full legal claims!

Edwin

Edited November 6, 2008 by Eddiesilence

[Guest roger]

pm me a copy please, of the lot

or stick it in a passworded rar on savefile or something if it is big..

Cheers.

Edited November 6, 2008 by roger

[stuwyatt]

Nice one Ed

I have a hell of a lot of faith in you, your approach, and your obvious talents. Plus, your legal team is second to none in my eyes.

God speed!

[Eddiesilence]

Nice one Ed

I have a hell of a lot of faith in you, your approach, and your obvious talents. Plus, your legal team is second to none in my eyes.

God speed!

Cheers! Much appreciated Stu, best of luck in your case, and complete kudos goes to you for challenging prohibition. That's some serious honour you've got going on!!

Edwin

[Guest dr rockster]

Go get em tiger!

I'm really optimistic about this Eddie,this is a great way to proceed methinks?

All the very best with it Eddie.

[withnail]

Very impressive stuff Eddie, mind everything I've seen you write has been

Just wanted to say good luck and thanks really. You never know in a few years I may be able to pin a Regina vs Stratton 2009 document on my grown room door to keep away evil policemen, stoners garlic if you will

[Sarah_Martin]

It's so fabulous to have access to all this wisdom. :wink: I feel safe instead of suffering the constant anxiety of possible arrest.

Admiration for you Eddiesilence!

[Burton Red]

Wishing you luck fella with your case.

Maybe Roger has a point with the Rar file passworded. I bet there's a few bodies around here that would like a look and it would save you emailing/PM'ing it to those who ask.

Burton

[Jessiedog]

Nice one Ed

I have a hell of a lot of faith in you, your approach, and your obvious talents. Plus, your legal team is second to none in my eyes.

God speed!

Cheers! Much appreciated Stu, best of luck in your case, and complete kudos goes to you for challenging prohibition. That's some serious honour you've got going on!!

Edwin

Edwin,

Apro pro stu's thread; could you please provide some down-to-earth, real "what to say to the jury when the judge is telling them that they can't listen to your insistence for a 'perverse verdict'", type of scenario?

I mean real "on the ground (in the dock)", "how to present", "what works", in terms of being able to convince (or at least present to,) a jury - in the face of a recalcitrant judge - a coherent and effective argument.

Stu has other avenues to explore, but if shit comes to fan and all else fails in his arguments, I feel that, given his circumstances, he has a really good chance of getting a "perverse"..... IF he has the chance to present a strong, emotional appeal, while also finding a way to somehow thwart, or at least dilute, the judges inevitably strong refutation of "perversity" as being an appropriate legal outcome.

What would be your (and your advisors,) best "last ditch" appeal to the jury for a "PV" be, if all else failed?

Many thanks.

Woof

[Eddiesilence]

Withnail, Sarah, Burton:

THANKS! I was flagging earlier this evening, after doing a whole load of dreadful admin case stuff, but then I read your excellent words and now I'm all energised again! Thanks a million, the support both Stu and I are getting gives me the feeling that this is exactly the right time to be fighting this fight - things are changing, slowly, but they're moving.

Jessiedog:

You're gonna like this...

Earlier today, I was talking on the phone with Stu, discussing the jury nullification route. I said to Stu (he'll doubtless confirm this) "Jessiedog's advice: gotta take that on board." Stuart agreed.

Here's what you said in Stu's thread:

In my (limited) experience, if you argue for nullification, the judge WILL tell the jury that they are obligated to ignore you and base their decision on the evidence. The judge WILL tell the jury that they MUST find you guilty since you have admitted the facts of the case.

This, obviously, puts great pressure on the jury to come to a guilty finding.

IMO, when you play this gambit, you should pre-empt the judge and TELL the jury that the judge will tell them that they MUST follow the evidence and that the judge will not agree that nullification is an option for them. Tell them that, of course, this is the only thing the judge can say - this is the judges role in court. However, (you tell them,) the FACT remains that nullification IS an option for the jury and that, in the interests of JUSTICE, this case is the perfect example of one where such nullification is not only justified, it is compelled.

Recently, I spoke to a lawyer chap who said the same thing as you did: the judge will almost certainly say the jury is obligated to ignore you and follow the law and the law alone, because this is a court of law, and not of conscience, morality or belief. I think, therefore, that this is a very strong probability.

But you went further, got proactive, and suggested a possible remedy involving pre-empting the judge. I think it's a good move. But I've got to say I'm no lawyer, and I haven't any experience or knowledge to speak of regarding jury nullification, so it would be irresponsible of me to give an opinion without pointing out that I am only speculating, and I'm basing my speculations on the veriest ignorance! I shall check it out with legal type people though and see what the deal is.

Edwin

[Therealprawn]

Have your legal team been able to determine whether this approach has ever been tried before in regards to the law on cannabis?

Kudos to you for making a stand; it would have been easy to simply plead guilty and accept your punishment. The only way a fundamentally unjust law like this will be repealed is for people at every level to fight against it. Thank you for refusing to go quietly.

[stuwyatt]

Thanks Eddie for replying to jessiedog, and I am under the assumption that what you wrote is correct - but then again, I'm no lawyer either

I can't think at the moment... total burn out. I was on the phone constantly from waking up until an hour or so ago... but I'll try to focus on compiling a DIY pack so that people will understand and be able to apply the jury nullification route in their cases - using the most recent cases as examples, and instructions to a solicitor/barrister. But it will take a bit of time.