THE JUDICIAL Review Court on Friday threw out a motion brought by Gary Thompson, a Clarendon drug convict who is seeking an order to bar the Director of Public Prosecutions from taking steps to seize his property on which a quantity of ganja was found.
Kent Pantry, Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions, had published a notice that he was making an application for forfeiture under section four of the Drug Offences (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act for Thompson's house in York Town, Clarendon.
Thompson took the matter to court, contending that certain provisions of the Constitution were likely to be contravened in relation to him. He sought several declarations, one of which was that section 3 of the Drug Offences (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act 1994 was in breach of Chapter three of the Constitution, in that it provided for the deprivation of property contrary to section 18 of the said Chapter three of the Consti-tution.
Thompson, a businessman, of York Town, Clarendon, pleaded guilty on August 14, 1997 to the offences of possession of ganja and dealing in ganja. He was fined $32,000 or 15 months imprisonment at hard labour. The ganja was found in a storeroom at the back of his house.
The Judicial Review Court, comprising Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, Mr. Justice Karl Harrison, and Mr. Justice Granville James, heard the motion and handed down a unanimous decision, dismissing it.
"The forfeiture proceedings is not punishment for the offence for which the person is convicted, but is designed to prevent persons from enjoying the fruits of ill-gotten gains or to deprive them of property used in the acquisition of ill-gotten gains," the Chief Justice held. He said further that the issue in the matter was not one "relating to the determination of the existence of a person's civil rights."
The issue, he said, was whether or not the property was tainted property and, as such, should be forfeited.
Mr. Justice Karl Harrison said he was quite satisfied that Thompson had failed to establish that the provisions of the Drug Offences (Forfeiture of Pro-ceeds) Act were unconstitutional having regard to the provisions of the Constitution.
