How do you balance the need to protect the reputation of those falsely accused of sexual offences against the need to ensure such crimes are uncovered? By Robin Murray

Anyone who believes that there is a straightforward answer to this question simply does not understand the question. Many Lawyers are conflicted on this. Recently acquitted of a further allegation the perhaps now ironically styled former ‘publicist’ Max Clifford said in court “I was found guilty [in 2014] ... I know I’m innocent. Hopefully one day I will be able to prove that. One of the things I’ve learned [from the last trial] is you’re guilty until proven innocent when sexual offences are involved.” The fact of his acquittal would tend to suggest this is an exaggeration as does the high level of acquittals in Rape trials.

Legal aid - From the depths of defeat we need a catalyst for renewal' by Robin Murray

Leaving aside the important issue of the contracts it is the appalling collapse in legal rates following that are worrying more and more of us. These are not just the scheduled 17.5% 'across the board' cut but in many cases far more severe cuts with, for example in my own county of Kent, cuts in police station work of up to 34% in fees. Very few businesses can survive such a disastrous reduction in income without severe consequences for both the business and the public even with an increase in volume for those who have 'won' duty contracts. This to be followed by further cuts to Crown court fees in January. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Government does not want people to be represented by viable quality firms.

CANNABIS- IS THE CRIMINALISATION JUSTIFIED? by Luke Smith

The war on drugs, specifically cannabis, has been long debated. It was announced in May 2008 that the government re-classified cannabis from a Class C controlled drug to Class B under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).  Such a decision warranted harsh scrutiny as the government’s reasoning seemed flawed having overridden the expert opinion of the ACMD, where it is contended that political considerations may have overridden scientific evidence. The report found ‘soft drugs’ such as herbal cannabis commonly smoked as a ‘joint’ are not so dangerous. ‘Hard drugs’ such as ‘sensimilla’ (commonly called ‘skunk’), they claim, can have serious health issues. Hence, why does the government feel the need to reclassify cannabis when the overwhelming tide of expert and public opinion is against it?

Cannabis: A mental disturbance or medicinal healer?

The ACMD’s 2008 report recognised that young people are the predominant users of the drug; however, they found a decline in use to 20% from 25% five years previous to releasing the report. The government tried justifying their decision using the ‘Gateway Theory’ which describes the possibility that use of cannabis leads to use of more dangerous drugs such as opiates and cocaine. Again this argument was flawed, as the ACMD found it impossible to state whether cannabis leads to dependency upon hard Class A drugs, who considered the risks to be small and certainly less that those associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco. The case of Patricia Tabram brought much controversy over the medicinal use of cannabis. At 68, she suffered much pain, and began growing her own cannabis which she used whilst cooking to aid her pain. As a grandmother she was not supplying cannabis or affecting anyone else through her habit, yet received 250 hours of unpaid work for her troubles. For most, this decision was richly unjust as it’s clear that society’s approach towards illegal drugs and those who use them should be calm, rational and balanced, rather than unreasonable in circumstances such as these. It appears the re-classification has provided anything but this. How can the legislature, in drafting the new legislation, intend to criminalize such justified uses of the drug? Simply, they can’t. It appears that the current re-classification took a narrow, almost ignorant, approach to such societal factors and ultimately became lost in a sea of bad media, and wrongful images the younger generation seemingly portray in modern society.

Cannabis and its social purpose

The Dutch are among the lowest users of cannabis in Europe despite the Netherlands’ well-known tolerance of the drug. According to a regional study, 5.4% of adults in the Netherlands used cannabis, compared with the European average of 6.8%. This comparison is striking, although cannabis is prohibited generally in the Netherlands, there is a policy of tolerance with regard to cannabis in their world famous “coffee-shops”. The 14 coffee-shops in Maastricht attract around 10,000 visitors per day, little more than 3.9 million visitors per year. Of those visitors, 70% are not resident in the Netherlands, with many being of British nationality. These figures represent a large social interest in cannabis throughout Europe, which clearly is going unnoticed. It goes without saying that such a limiting approach to cannabis has its knock-on effects. This large social interest would not just diminish due to legal restrictions on cannabis. Rather, it would encourage the illegal trade in or resale of cannabis, potentially leading to higher prosecution rates ultimately solving nothing in the context of an ever-rising prison population.

Recreational use of cannabis emphasises the agency of a person in seeking pleasure or pain relief by using cannabis, while even young people seemingly understand the choices they make. It simply cannot be assumed all cannabis users will abuse drugs. As society  continually  references drugs, the rising levels of cannabis users seems unlikely to decrease, leaving many young,  and other normally law abiding citizens potentially open to engaging in illegal actions through merely pursuing a social activity.

The potential effects of the current legal classification

Such stringent strategies seem highly inappropriate because most cannabis users are otherwise law-abiding citizens who use cannabis for reasons already established here, with the potential for a net-widening effect in criminalising the people who choose to use it. It would seem the re-classification of cannabis is a political move rather than a medical one upon rejecting the ACMD’s normally sound recommendations. Why establish an independent committee with representatives of doctor’s, the police, and drugs counsellors and then reject their findings? In this respect, it cannot be fair, or accordingly appropriate, for the government to take a headline approach and want to satisfy a particular constituency of public opinion, even though the ‘overwhelming tide of public opinion’ are clearly against the re-classification.

Luke Smith
LLB Law Student University of Hull