Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
|
| Author |
Message |
BudBeard
Heavy User
Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 237
Location: Dunsterdam
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mfinest
Heavy User
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 231
Location: NZ
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:12 pm |
 |
|
Well done Paul!
Defending himself againt the onslaught of the state and winning. Thats all good, excellent. Now if only everyone who was charged with these unjust laws would stand up and burden he system then it will break in no time at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hometoad
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Posts: 330
Location: mosgiel
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:44 pm |
|
|
that man deserves a DB  good on ya paul.
I wish I'd known about it at the time as I would have come along to take notes and give support.
My last little run in with the law netted me 100 hour community service. I did 8 hours this past Saturday with 4 of the 7 that I was with being there for cannabis offenses.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
potshots
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Posts: 929
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
|
Congratulations Paul. Nicely done. 
Your acquittal most probably explains why there was nothing about your case in the ODT's Court News!
Anyway, you've certainly shown that it's worth pleading "not guilty" in cannabis cases, thereby putting the burden of proof onto the Police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neuron
Heavy User
Joined: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 247
Location: nz
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
|
What he said^ except the burden of proof on the 'crown'. Enough of the mickey mouse bullshit from the American drug war in NZ.
Good job Paul. 
| hometoad wrote: |
My last little run in with the law netted me 100 hour community service. I did 8 hours this past Saturday with 4 of the 7 that I was with being there for cannabis offenses. |
This says it all! It was a similar situation when I did community service too, and not one of the alleged offenders was at all of the view that they had recieved anything remotely resembling a fair trial or actual representation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slayer
Heavy User
Joined: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 229
Location: dunsterdam
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:25 pm |
|
|
Whoo! Nice one.
Also, congrats on the critic coverage. You came off very well |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul13
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Nov 16, 2005
Posts: 437
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:06 am |
|
|
| Slayer wrote: | Whoo! Nice one.
Also, congrats on the critic coverage. You came off very well |
What was that Critic coverage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lochaber
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 67
Location: SINZ
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:40 am |
|
|
[From alcp.org.nz] "However the Judge agreed with Mr McMullan's defence that the cannabis plant discovered by police while attending to another matter, was in a common area of the house and therefore could potentially have belonged to other people who frequented the address."
This is of interest to me - I would have thought the cops' attempt to just nail the owner/resident of the house (in lieu of knowing whose cannabis it was) would have succeeded? Don't they usually succeed in cases like this? If so, what made this case different?
_________________
This is our year - TICK THE LEAF: www.alcp.org.nz
- 2008 ALCP Candidate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bubblebobble
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Posts: 427
Location: Dunedin
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:32 am |
|
|
| It seems to me that they got cocky and tried to nail Paul for it, instead of charging whoever owns the place for allowing premises to be used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paula
Forum Moderator
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
Posts: 2996
Location: Christchurch, NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:52 pm |
|
|
| I didn't realise 'allowing premises' could apply to one plant, I thought it was only where supply is taking place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bubblebobble
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Posts: 427
Location: Dunedin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lochaber
Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Posts: 67
Location: SINZ
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:06 pm |
|
|
I'm gonna guess that the "allowing premises" charge fell down on the "knowingly" part of "knowingly permits any premises or any vessel, aircraft, hovercraft, motor vehicle, or other mode of conveyance to be used for the purpose of the commission of an offence against this Act".[/b]
_________________
This is our year - TICK THE LEAF: www.alcp.org.nz
- 2008 ALCP Candidate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bubblebobble
Chronic Pothead
Joined: Jul 04, 2006
Posts: 427
Location: Dunedin
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:56 pm |
|
|
He was only charged with possession AFAIK  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
