Conditional Discharge For Marijuana

January 7, 2012

A 33-year-old man was given a Conditional Discharge after he pleading guilty to a charge of possessing 2 grams of cannabis yesterday in Magistrates Court.

The Court was told that the man had been stopped and searched close by his Southampton residence. According to his lawyer, Elizabeth Christopher, this search had taken place around 1am on a date in March 2011 and was part of specially heightened Police activity in the area which resulted from a nearby gun incident.

Ms Christopher pointed out that the search by Police was, in her view, ‘speculative’ and improper because Police had no other or any real cause to search her client who, she said, was standing on his own property at the time and in breach of no law.

Countering this, Senior Magistrate Archie Warner said that people need to understand that if they disagree with any laws about the use of marijuana, they must accept the fact that they will take a chance if they persist in using the illegal drug.

Ms Christopher said that in her view and considering all the circumstances in this case, a Conditional Discharge was the appropriate sentence. After brief consideration, the Senior Magistrate handed down his Conditional Discharge decision.

Read More About

Category: All, Court Reports, Crime

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Liars says:

    omg

  2. andre says:

    Verdict sounds ok to me.

  3. sassyinbda says:

    This verdict sounds ok to me as well! If this guy was on his property what gives the police the right to stop him and search him?

    • Shaking my head says:

      Well I guess it’s who you are

    • jussayin says:

      SASSY, THEY CAN STOP AND SEARCH U WHERE EVER THEY WISH… JUST LIKE THEY CAN ENTER UR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT. WHERE ARE OUR RIGHTS AS A PEOPLE? PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BREAK THE DOORS OF OUR POLITICIANS AND MANAGERS, CEO’S ET AL AND SEE WHAT THEY FIND IN THAT SPECIAL CLOSET… OOOOON BUT WAIT, THEYRE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT IN – THATS RIGHT…. I FORGOT!

  4. Have a reason says:

    Why did they decide to stop on his property? He surely wasn’t being unruly cause they would have stated. Which they didn’t …. Let him LIVE!!!

  5. Legal Reasons? says:

    Is it me or are the media not very consistent in naming or not naming the suspects in similar cases? Is this how our current legal system works?

  6. Rapp Bermy!! says:

    Let ppl live!! we r meant to feel safe round the cops.. they need to chill,legalize cannabis and had coffee shop, u kno how much money would come here?? :} n + crime rate would go down..