cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Cases Can Be Prosecuted Marijuana Cases Can Be Prosecuted Posted by CN Staff on June 15, 2003 at 08:45:50 PT By Shannon Kari, CanWest News Service Source: Ottawa Citizen Toronto -- The federal Justice Department insists it can prosecute outstanding marijuana possession cases in Ontario, despite conceding there is no prohibition against holding small amounts of the drug. A senior Justice official also blames the confusion on judges in the province."There has been a considerable amount of inconsistency in terms of the approach the judges have taken," James Leising, director of prosecutions (Ontario Region) at Justice, said in court documents filed with an appeal of a recent Ontario Superior Court decision. Justice Steven Rogin ruled last month that there is no law against marijuana possession because the federal government failed to comply with a July 2001 deadline set by the Ontario Court of Appeal for Parliament to pass new legislation.The federal government is appealing that decision, which is binding on provincial courts in Ontario. Earlier this month, an Ontario Court of Appeal judge ruled that she did not have jurisdiction to suspend the Superior Court ruling before the appeal is heard in late July.As a result, police across Ontario have said that they will not lay new marijuana possession charges until the issue is resolved by the Court of Appeal.A 1986 Supreme Court of Canada decision, however, permits the Crown to prosecute marijuana possession cases that are still in the system, Mr. Leising testified last week, during a cross-examination connected to the Justice Department's appeal.Federal Crown attorneys are telling courts that this authority comes from the "de facto" doctrine, which upholds previous convictions under laws that have not been declared invalid.Paul Burstein, a Toronto defence lawyer who has acted in a number of cases involving the country's marijuana laws, said the Crown is presenting judges with only a short excerpt from the Supreme Court decision. He noted that the court also made it clear that the de facto doctrine does not permit prosecutions of laws that have been declared invalid."This is consistent with the whole approach to marijuana by the Department of Justice. It is misguided and bordering on being dishonest," said Mr. Burstein.Mr. Leising admitted in his testimony that the legal argument "is not working very well," in Ontario courts. "Some (judges) accept it and some don't," he said.Toronto police chief Julian Fantino recently criticized the Justice Department for a lack of clarity about its position on marijuana possession.He suggested it is responsible for some of the confusion, in part, because the federal government has introduced legislation to replace criminal sanctions with fines."I don't accept their view in that regard," Mr. Leising testified. He denied that his department has a duty to advise police forces in Ontario on this issue."We don't advise police forces in regard to how to exercise their discretion. We never have and we haven't given advice around this issue," said Mr. Leising.It was advice that Mr. Leising provided to the RCMP, however, that was the focus of a high-profile 1999 Supreme Court ruling about the legality of police engaging in a "reverse sting" operation by selling a large quantity of hashish to suspected drug traffickers.The court ultimately decided that police were required to disclose to the defence, some of the legal advice that had been provided by Mr. Leising.The senior Crown attorney also recently testified that he did not know how many marijuana possession cases are currently outstanding in Ontario.A Justice Department colleague told the Court of Appeal last week that there are "thousands of these charges in the system." Mr. Leising would agree only that the number is "more than many tens."Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)Author: Shannon Kari, CanWest News Service Published: Sunday, June 15, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Ottawa CitizenContact: letters thecitizen.southam.caWebsite: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/ Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmPot Possession Charges On Hold http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16614.shtmlJudge Allows Marijuana Ruling To Stand http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16592.shtmlArresting Pot Smokers Not Worth The Effort http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16555.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by phil_debowl on June 15, 2003 at 11:29:09 PT I like that "What Have They Been Drinkin" For years i've heard "what are you smoking" and similar phrases. I've never personally used the phrase, but from now on, anytime anyone says anything off the wall, dumb, or wierd, my new reply will be "what have you been drinking".Another piece of anti-rhetoric that i never noticed much. Thanks afterburner for the enlightenment. peace phil [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by afterburner on June 15, 2003 at 10:06:14 PT: What Have They Been Drinking? "Toronto -- The federal Justice Department insists it can prosecute outstanding marijuana possession cases in Ontario, despite conceding there is no prohibition against holding small amounts of the drug....Paul Burstein, a Toronto defence lawyer who has acted in a number of cases involving the country's marijuana laws, said the Crown is presenting judges with only a short excerpt from the Supreme Court decision. He noted that the court also made it clear that the de facto doctrine does not permit prosecutions of laws that have been declared invalid."This is consistent with the whole approach to marijuana by the Department of Justice. It is misguided and bordering on being dishonest," said Mr. Burstein."Marc Emery stands up to pot-snatching cops http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2973.html Marc Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine, invites Ontario residents to join him in protest on the sidewalk in front of the Toronto Police Department at 40 College Street West, where he will defiantly smoke joints next Thursday, June 19 at 4:20 pm. F U L L S T O R Y http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2973.html [ Post Comment ] Post Comment