HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Canadian Supreme Court Postpones Marijuana Cases
Pubdate: Fri, 20 Dec 2002
Source: The Week Online with DRCNet (US Web)
Contact: http://www.drcnet.org/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2514
Author: Phillip S. Smith, Editor
Note: Links to information and documents for these cases are at
http://www.cannabislink.ca/legal/index.htm#legalcases
Also: A video interview with Chris Clay about his case is at
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1672.html
Bookmarks: http://www.mapinc.org/people/David+Malmo-Levine
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Chris+Clay
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Alan+Young
http://www.mapinc.org/people/Martin+Cauchon
http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
CANADIAN SUPREME COURT POSTPONES MARIJUANA CASES, CITES PARLIAMENT REPORT,
JUSTICE MINISTER STATEMENT ON DECRIM
Canada's highest court backed away from a potentially groundbreaking set of
marijuana cases on December 12, the day after the House of Commons
committee on drugs issued its report calling for marijuana
decriminalization and three days after Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said
he would attempt to introduce decriminalization legislation early next
year. In three cases set to be heard by the court this week, convicted
marijuana smokers were ready to argue that federal marijuana laws are
unconstitutional because the drug is relatively harmless. Now that court
date is pushed back to the spring session, according to the court, and
perhaps for much longer, according to one of the attorneys arguing the case.
While both lawyers for the defendants and the Crown sought to proceed with
the hearing, the Supreme Court demurred. Speaking for the court, Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin said it would not make sense to proceed given
that Canada's marijuana laws appear to be in flux. "A central question is
the Minister of Justice has announced his intention to introduce
legislation in the parliament that will decriminalize, in some ways,
possession of marijuana," she said. "The underlying basis will be taken up
in parliament and widely discussed for months to come. In considering all
of these circumstances, the court will adjourn."
"They say we will be back in court in the spring, but I don't know what
that means," said a frustrated Alan Young, attorney for defendant
Christopher Clay. "There could legislation introduced by then, giving the
court a reason to delay again. This doesn't make sense. The court should
recognize that we are potentially talking about delaying this case for two
years while waiting for legislation to pass."
Many Canadian activists are asking whether Justice Minister Cauchon's
announcement in favor of decriminalization last week was designed to stop
the court from ruling on the constitutional challenge to marijuana
prohibition. "This announcement from the government came out just days
before the Supreme Court was going to hear a comprehensive challenge to the
cannabis law," said British Columbia Marijuana Party leader Dana Larsen.
"The fact that the court decided to postpone the cases, doesn't inspire us
with great hope for the court," he told DRCNet. "The timing on this is
either extremely coincidental or extremely well-planned. It seems suspicious."
"The timing of Cauchon's announcement is really bizarre," agreed Marc-Boris
St.-Maurice of the Canada Marijuana Party. "There is supposed to be a wall
between the legislature and the judiciary, but Cauchon even wrote a letter
to the Supreme Court on the issue, and the court used that as an excuse to
postpone the hearings," he told DRCNet. "We think Cauchon should have to
resign for improperly influencing the Supreme Court."
"It seems to me there's an utmost disrespect that was shown for the legal
process," Young told DRCNet. "The court feels they've been put in a
difficult position. The Minister of Justice should not have done that."
Young also said it was "beyond coincidence" that the government scheduled
the release of the parliamentary committee report on decriminalization for
the same week as the Supreme Court hearing. "The government is using smoke
and mirrors here, people are talking out of both sides of their mouths,"
said Young. "There has been an effort to derail the Supreme Court
challenge. The government may want to act on marijuana, but it doesn't want
the court forcing its hand. I think the government wants to see what is
going to happen and doesn't want to be hurried by the court."
That may be politically naive, said Young. "Anyone who understands the
politics of drugs should know that a constitutional ruling would not excite
as much of a retaliatory American response as a legislative act." But it
looks as if the Canadian government wants to do it the hard way.
And the marijuana defendants will be waiting. "I think we'll be back here
in the spring session," David Malmo-Levine told the Toronto Globe & Mail.
"The government won't have raised a finger, won't have done anything, or
else they'll have introduced a horrible bill that will result in many
people going to jail for unpaid fines. Either way, we'll be back here with
the same complaints."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake