hey guys interesting letters concerning PSNI and Grower being caught

[the green shabeen]

here you go njoy,  fella got busted three times and had enough so now trying to taking on the PSNI (police service northern ireland)

 

[OFFSITE LINK REMOVED]

 

 

After my third conviction for cultivation and possession of cannabis in the magistrates' courts and after my second failed appeal for the high court's protection from the magistrates, I got very disillusioned with the justice system.

So just over a year ago, I rang the police to ask for police protection saying that I wanted to talk to a senior officer.  I got a call back from Inspector Morris who was extraordinarily patient with me when I explained that I wanted police protection from the police. She heard me out and then recommended that I contact the PSNI's legal advisors.

I wrote the following letter in a spirit of nervous optimism...

Head of Legal Services ­ Ms Donna Scott 11th April 2012

Police Service of Northern Ireland
Police Headquarters
65 Knock Road
BT5 6LE
Dear Ms Scott,
It is subsequent to a telephone conversation I had with Inspector Morris on Thursday 5th April that I write to you to ask for your help. After contacting staff at her office earlier that day, she called me back later that evening and we spoke for some 10 or so minutes.

The circumstance of the concern I brought to her is that;persons exercising a rational choice in their use of recreational drugs, causing little or no social harm, are impoverished, socially excluded, criminalized and penalised under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, whilst persons causing greater social harm, through their misuse of more recognisably harmful drugs, are excluded from the operation of the same law (which was enacted by Parliament so as to provide carefully­considered and proportional responses to the harms caused by the misuse of any potentially harmful drugs).

I felt that Inspector Morris treated me with kindness and consideration in allowing me to explain all this. I felt she was sympathetic with my argument but she felt unable to deal with my request, which is, in its essence, that the PSNI respond to the need for protection of our Convention rights more quickly than as yet the courts have determined. She did however suggest that I contact the legal department of the PSNI. So upon a search of the PSNI website I found your title and hence I write to you now.
I seek to establish that:­ the less favourable treatment of some persons due to their activities with certain drugs [e.g. cannabis] than other persons are treated for their activities with certain other drugs [e.g. tobacco] is incompatible with the Convention rights of those persons less favourably treated under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 in conjunction with Article 14.
I declare a personal interest as I have brought this matter to the Appeal Court for hearing in September re previous interference by the PSNI, the PPS and the Judiciary concerning my activities re cannabis. I make the claim that, whether one likes it or not, there is no justification in law for treating some people less favourably under separate and unequal regulations than other persons are treated in the same circumstance and the first help I ask of you is that you scrutinize the following legal argument for any legal error, (I enclose some supporting documentation with this letter):­
By the Northern Ireland Act 1998, subsection 98(4), a provision of an Act of the Assembly or of subordinate legislation discriminates against any person or class of persons if it treats that person or that class of persons less favourably in any circumstances than other persons are treated in those circumstances by the law for the time being in force in Northern Ireland. Yet a single class of persons, those concerned with potentially harmful substances, are treated unequally under the law for the time being in force in Northern Ireland. This unequal treatment is a combined result of the deliberate decision of the Home Office to exclude alcohol and tobacco from designation as controlled drugs under section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the deliberate decision by the DHSSPS to exercise the 7(4) discretion of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 re certain relatively safer drugs when it made the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001, which prevents lawful access to these safer drugs without prejudice to the generality of people in Northern Ireland.

By permitting lawful access to alcohol and tobacco but not permitting lawful access to safer drugs the DHSSPS is failing to abide by its mission statement, failing to administer sections 7, 10, 22 and 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in accordance with the sections 2 and 13 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 and coercing people using drugs in a recreational context into more harmful rather than less harmful activities.

The less favourable and unequal degrading treatments, deprivation of liberties, unfair trials and the less favourable and unequal interference in the private lives, freedoms of thought, freedoms of conscience and freedoms of religion of people who use control drugs that cause less health and social harm than alcohol or tobacco, is incompatible with the Rule of Law and incompatible with Convention rights under Articles 3, 5, 6,8 and 9 in conjunction with Article 14. Her Majesty's Government is thus in breach of sections 3, 6 and 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, sections 6, 24, 75, 76 the Pledge of Office and the Ministers Code of Conduct of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and sections 2 and 13 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009. By section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 a provision of an Act is not law if it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. Thus the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 is not law. Thus the PSNI have no authority to intervene with peoples' activities re certain controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.The role of the police service is to enforce the law, prevent and detect crime and protect the communities it serves, but there are dreadful consequences to enforcing legislation that is incompatible with Convention rights. I am concerned that is the awful reality of circumstance in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland are unwittingly complicit. Decent peaceful people are being marginalized and criminalised by the very people who have pledged to serve and protect them.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland state that “The protection of human rights has always been at the core of policing.” This is enshrined in law and the PSNI code of ethics;

(1.1) Police officers have a duty according to section 32 of the Police (NI)Act 2000:-
(a) to protect life and property;
(b) to preserve order;
© to prevent the commission of offences; and
(d) where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring the offender to justice;
When carrying out these duties police officers shall protect human dignity and uphold the human rights of all persons as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant international instruments. I offer the suggestion that the PSNI honour this duty by using the yardstick of sections 6, 24 and 98(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as a more incisive tool than the Human Rights Act to help determine their course of action.
In considering whether or not to uphold a person's human rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 is concerned with how legislation is read and given effect, whilst the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is concerned with whether or not legislation is compatible with Convention rights.
This may seem a minor quibble, but sections 6 and 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 leave no grey area of doubt as to whether a provision of the Northern Ireland Assembly is law or is not law.
Surely it is easier for a PSNI officer to determine whether or not a person's human rights and fundamental freedoms are at risk of being violated rather than for that same police officer to determine the legality of reading and giving effect to the terms of an Act.
It was during my training as a nurse in Belfast City Hospital, between 1976 and 1980, that I witnessed first hand the dreadful consequences of alcohol and tobacco abuse and it's obvious to me, even though the Home Secretary dictates otherwise, that alcohol and tobacco are dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs capable of causing harm sufficient to cause a social problem.
I am now aged 59, and my current abuse of tobacco is alarming me. This is all the more agonizing as I did quit smoking over 9 years ago after making two lifestyle changes. I had been a regular smoker of tobacco and cannabis resin “joints” for some years and I knew that this was so bad for my physical and financial health that I had better do something about it. I addressed both issues in 2002. Firstly, I began to cultivate my own cannabis as the alternative to buying little bits of very dubious quality brown material at an extortionate price from a street supplier, themselves caught up in a chain of corruption. Secondly, I bought a good quality vaporizer and began using my own cannabis with this less harmful method of delivery rather than smoking it with tobacco. This is exactly what top doctors are recommending people should do in order to eliminate the harms caused by smoking. It worked for me, for within 3 months of using my vaporizer, I had quit smoking and I was completely free of tobacco. That was a wonderful feeling as I turned 50 in March 2003.
This circumstance was first overturned by the actions of the PSNI some 20 months later when a squad arrived at my home and confiscated all my property re cannabis cultivation. During their raid I found some cigarettes and started smoking again! I was then let off with a caution.
Had I since then been left alone, I would not now be writing to you. But, while the evidence has piled up that cannabis is an extremely safe and useful medicine, the PSNI have raided my home on a further 3 occasions, each resulting in confiscation of my property and criminal charges being brought against me. And all this while, it has also become more and more evident that it is the misuse of alcohol that causes most social harm in Northern Ireland and that it is the misuse of tobacco that causes most harms to peoples' health.
Ironically, the health improvements the DHSSPS so desperately strives yet fails to achieve, are eminently achievable by supervising a lawful supply of safer drugs than alcohol or tobacco as is recommended in subsection 1(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and as is facilitated by sections 7, 22 and 31 of the Act. This is the possibility that the DHSSPS itself obstructed by its exercise of the 7(4) discretion of the Misuse of Drugs Act re safer drugs than alcohol or tobacco through making the SR 431 Designation Order in 2001.
It is due to my conviction that I am a victim of injustice, that I have brought my claim, that certain of my fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated, to the Court of Appeal in Belfast. Where the court will obviously have difficulty is in dealing with ramifications and consequences that may follow an adjudication of chronic wrongdoing by public servants. This, as I may need to make clear to the judges, is not a problem that I have created. I understand that it will take considerable courage on the part of a judge to dismiss the entrenched denial, adjudicate in my favour and put anend to many years of injustice, but prolonging injustice is not the purpose of the criminal justice system no matter how convenient that might be for certain interested parties, and am I not entitled to be heard by an independent judiciary?
I suggest that a negatively biased propaganda, about the harms caused by certain drugs that alter thoughts and perceptions, has been promulgated by successive Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries on behalf of those with vested interests in the world­wide revenues from tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals. This campaign of negative propaganda has worked by distorting peoples' perceptions about the scale of harms associated with different drugs, but it has not distorted the actual figures and statistical analysis which do support the argument that I present.
The power wielded by mighty corporations through their undue influence on Government can be challenged in the UK courts as an abuse of [court] process due to unconscionable behaviour by the executive, but for the sake of peace and reconciliation in a divided community, the people of Northern Ireland have been given extra protection of their individual human rights by the Northern Ireland Act which the judiciary and the police are bound to uphold.
When a provision of a statute is incompatible with the Rule of Law and incompatible with Convention rights, serving and protecting the community takes precedence over enforcing that statute. Anything less is not only unlawful, but it betrays the trust that the community put in the front­line public service that is the PSNI. This placing of trus works in a virtuous circle because the PSNI co­depend on the trust that is enabled them by the community. Loss of that trust breaks the circle of common benefit and instead creates division, fear and strife... the very circumstance that the Northern Ireland Act sought to end for good.
So my second request is, and I make this in view that the PSNI are placed to have a closer connection and more open door line of communication with the community than does the courts, if you do agree that SR 431 is incompatible with Convention rights, that you advise the PSNI senior management team accordingly. I believe that the timing is right for intelligent action. Whilst Professor David Nutt might have been sacked, he hasn't been silenced, rather his abrupt dismissal has resulted in a growing number of prominent and respected professional people including top police officers,top lawyers, top doctors, top pharmacologists, top business people, top Government advisers and senior politicians calling for an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs legislation. I hope this letter reflects on you as part of that small visible tip of an enormous iceberg of injustice that has been tearing a gash in the credibility and respect that vast numbers of unrepresented people in the community have for the vows of PSNI officers to serve and protect their community. The converse of this ghastly circumstance is that the PSNI have a shining opportunity to stand up for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person in Northern Ireland in recognition of the terms of sections 32, 38 and 52 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 re Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the 2008 PSNI Code of Ethics. I believe that you have the privilege of endorsing this possibility with real authority.

Yours sincerely, James Torrens­Spence

Persona[,  Professional, Protective  Poticing
Date: 3'd May 2012
Dear Mr Torrens-Spence,
Thank you for your letter dated,  1lth April }Alz,which I read with interest. Ms Donna  Scott asked that I respond to you on her behalf.
I am glad to hear that you consider that you have been treated professicnally  and with understanding  in your dealings with the PSNI to date.

In your leffer, you claim that it is unlawful for the PSNI to enforce the Misuse of Drugs Act 19?1, as to do so constitutes  discrimination  against persons  who use



controlled  substances.  You compare the harmful  effects  of controlled  substances,  such as cannabis, with those of other drugs,  such as alcohol or tobacco.
You aiso seek my agreement to your clairn that the Misuse of Drugs (Designation)Order (ltlorthem  lreland) 2001 is unlawful as it breaches the Human Rights Act 1998.
I regret that I am unable to agree with either of your propositions.
As you wiil be awars, the Human  Rights Act 1998  and other iegislation  you heipfuiiy referred  to outlaws discrirnination  on a range  of specified  grounds.  These  include race, gender, colour, language, etc. Persons who use controlled  substances  are not within the range  of categories specified in the Human  fughts Act 1998 or other legislation.
It is not the role of the PSNI to determine  the lawfulness  of legislation.  In applying the law, we always  ensure  that we do so in a lawful manner, in full compliance  with the Human Rights Act 1998 and our other legal obligations.
I note that you are involved  in proceedings  concerning  this matter,  and am sure you will understand that I am unable to comrnent  on them.
In conclusion, I regret that I am unable to assist you and must inform  you that PSNI will continue  to enforce the Misuse  of Drugs Act 1971.
Yours sincerely
geJ4vkJ^{
Ralph  Roche

Human  Rights Lawyer

tsgal Services Branch, PSNI HQ, Brooklyn,65  Knock Road, Belfast, NI' BT5 6LE
Reference 53: Letter from PSNI to
]ames Torrens-Spence  3'd May 2A12 Page 283

 

HM Gov admits that it is an historical and cultural tradition to treat peoples’ activities with alcohol and tobacco separately and more leniently than our activities with other substances whilst it also acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco abuse causes the vast majority of real health and social harms.

The Department of Health, Social Services is not using its devolved discretionary powers (to make persons’ activities with cannabis lawful so as to reduce health inequalities and to enable people in Northern Ireland to increase control over and improve their health and social well-being).

Thus an act intended to protect the public from the health and social harms caused by the misuse of drugs is being administered improperly and in violation of ECHR anti-discrimination legislation.

I have been raided 4 times over 6 years by the PSNI for cultivating cannabis, resulting 6 convictions (cultivation and possession are 2 separate convictions). Whilst seeking a high court intervention from the most recent prosecutions I wrote to PSNI legal services about the duty of the PSNI to uphold our human rights re our activities with cannabis that have been deemed unlawful by the state.

 

Command Secretariat
Police Service of Northern Ireland
Police Headquarters
Brooklyn
65 Knock Road
Belfast
BT5 6LE

Dear Chief Constable Baggott, Deputy Chief Constable Judith Gillespie, and Assistant Chief Constables Dave Jones, Alistair Finlay, Drew Harris, George Hamilton and Will Kerr;

I seek an acknowledgement from the Senior Team that your legal services have altered the wording (and thus the meaning) of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I wrote to PSNI legal services in respect of the less favourable treatment by HM Government towards people who use cannabis compared to the more lenient treatment of those people who use alcohol or tobacco. The reply I received from legal services claimed that:-

".....the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation outlaws discrimination on a range of specified grounds. These include race, gender, colour, language, etc. Persons who use controlled substances are not within the range of categories specified in the Human Rights Act 1998 or other legislation."

This reply from the PSNI legal services is incorrect. The correct wording from the ECHR is:-

ARTICLE 14
Prohibition of discrimination
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 defines legislative discrimination in subsection 98(4):-
“For the purposes of this Act, a provision of an Act of the Assembly or of subordinate legislation discriminates against any person or class of persons if it treats that person or that class less favourably in any circumstances than other persons are treated in those circumstances by the law.”

I hope that, in living up to its claim to be the finest Police Service in the world, the PSNI will fearlessly investigate (1) why its own legal services have misquoted the law, (2) why the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland has failed to exercise his powers so as to meet the requirements of s2 and s13 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 and (3) why has the Minister of Health failed to abide by his Pledge of Office to “serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination.” See paragraph 6.19 of  “Drugs Policy - a radical look ahead?” by Richard Brunstrom QPM, B.Sc. (Hons.), M.Sc. Chief Constable North Wales Police, which is available in the Essential Reading section of www.drugequality.org.

Yours sincerely, James Torrens-Spence

 Reply;

 

Command Secretariat



PSNI Headquarters



65 Knock Road



BELFAST



BT5 6LE



,t> April2013



Please  quote our reference number  on all correspondence



James Torrens-Spence



aD l"'



.ye^  ,f/



Thank you for your letter dated 21 March 2013.



I can assure you that the correspondence which you have previously received  from Legal



Services Branch, Brooklyn accurately reflects the law as it stands in Northern lreland.



ln your letter you also question certain actions of the Minister  for the Department of



Heath, Social Services and Public Safety. The issues you raise do not involve any



allegations of criminality and are therefore not matters  within the statutory functions of the



Police Service of Northern lreland.



I trust this is of assistance.



Yours sincerely



ANDREW S CAMPBELL



lnspector



For Chief Constable



Gommand Secretariat,  PSNI Headquarters,  65 Knock Road,  Belfast,  Northern  lreland  BT5 6LE



Telephone 02890 700006 Fax 028 90 700124

Edited July 21, 2013 by distracted
trying to fic the horrible formatting. If anyone has an automated way of doing it please let me know!

[B B Bill]

Nice 1 .. I want police protection from the police.. Good luck with that .

Can't see the letters he wrote or replys ..

[the green shabeen]

i know somehow i dont think he'll win

disappointed didnt see all letters myself

[Guest grandad]

I once took them on and won, they still fuckin bust me again. the government gave my medical cannabis expert a job and closed the loop hole my solicitor got through, no winning we just have to go with the flow.

[the green shabeen]

I once took them on and won, they still fuckin bust me again. the government gave my medical cannabis expert a job and closed the loop hole my solicitor got through, no winning we just have to go with the flow.

feckers!!

[the green shabeen]

cheers nobody chum wasn't aware i'd made a boo boo. can anyone point my ignorant ass to the info in regards to stuff not to post

[Eddiesilence]

It's always lovely to see people telling the government to knock off the persecution bullshit. He's a top fellow, is James.

[Michael Luchóg]

That's well written . I didn't like Ralph Roche's reply though .He's afraid of speaking his mind . I'd hate to have to deal with that stress .T'is crazy , the legal tennis ! World's in a state of chassis and the cops are hunting plants

[Jimboo]

cheers nobody chum wasn't aware i'd made a boo boo. can anyone point my ignorant ass to the info in regards to stuff not to post

its just a case of breaking the link mate instead of posting http.blahblahblah.com change it to hxxp.blahblahblah.com

[the green shabeen]

so for an example off the top of my head would be

hxxp.mp*rn.com

[Jimboo]

so for an example off the top of my head would be

hxxp.mp*rn.com

just change the tt for xx mate most people now know to change it back to follow your link then

[Eddiesilence]

Instead of writing "http.mp*rn.com", the convention on UK420 is always to break the link by substituting the two 't's with a picture of a penis. Like this:


h p//mp*rn.com


We will let you off given that you didn't know the rule. But for future reference, break all links in this way or Joolz will get the arse.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Eddiesilence

[madgiz]

Actually the link was to another cannabis forum so it would have been deleted broken or not..