THE EDITOR, Sir:
SOMETIME AGO, on a radio programme, I told Franklin McKnight, that able and brilliant journalist, that the law permits persons to have ganja in their possession, and I made reference to section two of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Mr. McKnight found it strange and was not in agreement.
The Buju Banton Case now highlights the issue of ganja and I think it my duty to bring the Law to the public.
In the Appeal Case of Sutton vs. Regina reported at page 278 of Volume 10 Jamaica Law Reports, decided in 1967, Justice of Appeal Shelly in delivering the reasons for the Judgment of the Court, stated inter alia,
"The further point to be decided in this case is whether the burden of proof lay on the defendant to show that this was a medicinal preparation made from cannabis sativa, or upon the Crown to show it was not".
The learned judge went on:
"This possession is an offence under Section seven (c) of the Law, an absolute prohibition, but it is a complete defence to that charge if the substance is a medicinal preparation made from that plant".(my emphasis)
This law, in my view, allows a person in certain circumstances to have ganja in their possession. After all, how else will they be able to make 'medicinal preparation'? Indeed a few plants in one backyard may be the ideal requirement.
It is high time the Legislature clears up this issue. The several Governments, in relation to ganja, cannot continue to blow hot and cold. Trying to please the people on the one hand and bowing to their international masters on the other. This is demonstrated in the failure to implement the recommendations of the Commission on ganja while young men are locked up and given blots on their criminal records for mere possession.
The Sutton Case, which was argued by Ian Ramsay, was in fact, on this point following an earlier authority, Regina vs. Roy Lawson (1959) W.I.R. at page 344.
The appeal was dismissed in the Sutton case because it was felt that the appellant had not discharged his legal burden of proving that it was a 'medical preparation', quite an onerous task for a non-chemist. One would have thought that his oral evidence would have been sufficient.
The journey continues.
I am, etc.,
MICHAEL A. LORNE
headstartp@hotmail.com
Attorney-at-law
