Pubdate: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 Source: Australian, The (Australia) Copyright: News Limited 2000 Contact: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ Author: Colleen Egan LAWYER TO TEST BAN ON HOME DRUG USE A PERTH lawyer is to bring a test case against laws banning illicit drug use in the home, claiming the legislation is undemocratic and unconstitutional. Colin McKerlie said yesterday that the Supreme Court appeal would challenge the right of state parliament to curb the behaviour of individuals unless they were acting in a way that affected others. Mr McKerlie is preparing appeal documents after his client, Trevor Dunen, was convicted yesterday of possession of cannabis and a smoking implement, following a raid on his suburban home last year. The conviction of Dunen, 37, would be used for a test case challenging the Misuse of Drugs Act. "As the law now stands, a man could amputate his foot, cook it and eat it, and so long as he did it in the privacy of his own home, there would be nothing that the Western Australian Government could do to stop it," he told the Court of Petty Sessions in Perth. "To suggest that the allegedly negative effects of a drug would warrant the prohibition of its ingestion in such circumstances is a nonsense." Outside the court, Mr McKerlie criticised the state Labor Party, which withdrew decriminalisation of simple drug possession from its platform late last year. "Despite the fact that the Government takes out full-page advertisements telling us that one in three people use cannabis at some time in their life, no political party will take on the job of representing the rights of such a very large minority," he said. Mr McKerlie conceded that the Supreme Court might refuse the argument, flagging a challenge to the High Court. "I believe the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to determine whether the acts of state parliament are constitutional or not, but the justices may not agree with me," he said. "We'll take it to the High Court if we have to." An attempt to challenge the state's cannabis laws on the grounds they were unconstitutional failed in 1994. The appeal argued that the laws did not fall into the categorisation of a power to legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of the state. Supreme Court justice Michael Murray refused the appeal on the grounds that he disagreed with its likelihood to promote peace, order and good government. - --- MAP posted-by: Greg