Busted

And Now For Something Completely Different

By now, those of you who regularly read this site, will have read about the raid on the NAP headquarters that took place on the 27th of October 2006, (as reported in the latest news from NAP).

I'm the one who ended up receiving an infringement notice for possession of cannabis (personal).
An "offence" which carries a penalty of $200 + $10 levy for purposes of section 25B of Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act. Total penalty $210.

The whole episode was possibly the most civilized drug bust I've ever been subjected to.
This was not my first.

Flashback...

I have been busted before, many years ago, in Adelaide (S.A.). But that involved the front door being smashed off it's hinges and the house being generally torn apart. Ironic that in both cases the police left with approx. the same amount of pot.
That bust took place in the early 80's, just prior to the decriminalisation of cannabis possession in South Australia. Consequently, in that case I was not issued an infringement notice. Instead I was summonsed to appear in court. Just a few months later the possession of cannabis was decriminalised. The main reason for the decriminalisation was because so many people were being busted with paltry amounts of pot that the court system was becoming clogged and building a massive backlog of cases. Hence the Government of the day downgraded the possession of cannabis from a criminal offence to a misdemeanour offence, and began issuing infringement notices instead of summonses. This was done in the hope that people would just pay the fine and free up the courts.
However, in my case I appeared in court to plead guilty. But then I was young and naive and complient. My defence was that I had been smoking pot for some time in preference to drinking alcohol, and that I was not about to stop regardless of the outcome of the case. I was, in fact, pretty stoned at the time. However, the magistrate seemed to appreciate the honesty and issued the lightest penalty for all the possession cases that came before the court on that day. The fine, plus court costs came to approx. $140.

Now back to the present...

At approx 3:00pm on Friday October 27th, 8 drug squad officers and a sniffer dog (Monty) arrived at the front door of the NAP house, politely knocked, showed that they had a warrant to search the premises and requested entry.
One of the residents came out to the back porch to tell me "the Drug Squad's here with a warrant". I responded " you'd best let them in then, I spose".
At which point the res. unlocked the front door and guided them out to speak with me.

Initially two officers appraoched me and asked me if I was the lease-holder of the premises. I responded in the affirmative. They then informed me that they had a warrant to search the house, any vehicles and persons on the property, then produced the warrant for me to read.
The warrant stated that they were to search (based on information received) for "quantities of a dangerous drug, precursors and/or manufacturing equipment".
This would indicate to me that they were under the impression we were running a speed lab.

Since this has never been, is not and is unlikely to ever be the case, I am keen to question the validity of the search warrant.

So this time around I plan a slightly different approach. That being, to plead not guilty to having commited an offence.
I have returned the infringement notice, having filled out the section requesting that the matter be dealt with by the court.
I hope to argue that the warrant is invalid as it contravenes articles 9 and 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 9 addresses "arbitrary" arrest, detention and exile.
Article 12 addresses "arbitrary" invasion of home.

In raising the warrant in the first place, the Police ordinarily would need to provide the relevant authority (in this case a JP) with some degree of proof to justify their suspicions. I would expect this proof to be the result of a reasonable amount of investigation.
Evidence such as
1) Credible eyewitness account. Or a bust trail that leads to this address.
2) Reports from chemists, or other credible sources, regarding the purchase of psuedoephedrines.
3) Evidence of the purchase of said manufacturing equipment.
4) Tapes of telephone conversations that would indicate illicit activities in progress.
5) Prior convictions of any of the tennants that would indicate that such activities are likely.

As none of the suspected activities were in fact occuring, the Police could not possibly have had any of the above proof to present to a JP to justify a search warrant.

However, in the Northern Territory, apparently, when in relation to drugs, one only requires suspicion. Not reasonable suspicion based on any credible evidence.

I believe that whims, wishes and malicious gossip (and this is all the Police could have had) are arbitrary and therefore contravene the aforementioned articles of the UN UDHR.
If Northern Territory legislation provides for a warrant to be raised based on suspicion alone, then the legislation itself is contrary to the UN UDHR.
As Australia is one of the original signatories of the UN UDHR (1948), we are legally bound to abide by it. Thereby making the legislation invalid. Hence the warrant becomes invalid.
The Police should not have been at the NAP house in the first place to then find my miniscule amount of personal smoke.

I also have a problem with the whole ideology of the fine system. I believe that fines are just State sanctioned bribes. Bribery = corruption.
First we are given the opportunity to pay the official bribe to settle the matter out of court so that no conviction will be recorded.
At the next step we are offered the opportunity to pay the official bribe to stay out of jail.
I will not be a party to, nor a victim of the corruption perpetrated by the State.
I would rather be party to the destruction of a corrupt State.
I will not pay fines. I will continue to place the financial burden of this foolishness back on the State. In the long run, it will cost the NT Government far more than the $210 they have attempted to extort from me.

On the 23rd November I received, in the mail, notification that the infringement notice has been withdrawn and that a summons would be issued in due course.
Then on the 25th November the officer who issued the infringement notice, DSC. T. Abbott, and his off-sider came to the NAP house to ask if I would like to record a statement. I told them that I would prefer to make my statement in court before the Magistrate, and bid them farewell.

So that's where I'm at to date. Now I wait and wait.
I don't really expect to receive a summons to appear for mention before February. At which point I state my intention to plead not guilty. Then a date is set for a concilliatory hearing (your last chance to back down), at which point I state my intention to continue with a not guilty plea. This should be about April or May sometime. Then a date is set for the hearing, possibly by September. At this point I actually get to plead not guilty to having committed an offence, and present my case (that the warrant was invalid, therefore the Police should not have even been there in the first place)

I believe that the Magistrate's Court is a mere formallity. The Magistrate has little choice but to dismiss the case, or find me guilty. As technically I have broken the law as it stands now, a not guilty verdict at this juncture is not really an option.

Should the Magistrate find me guilty, rather than dismiss the case, then next comes the appeal to the Supreme Court. At which point I get to argue that the legislation allowing the warrant to be served in the first place is invalid.

Who knows where that will get me (jail probably). Still,it's not like that interferes with my travel plans. The upside being that it will have cost the State way more than they had hoped to get out of me, and I will have tied up supposedly valuable court time for a couple of years over a trivial matter.

If every person who received an infringement notice for personal possession took the same action, the Government may be left with no option but to legalise marijuana use in order to free up the courts once again.
It is unfortunate though that most people feel they have too much to lose by having a drug conviction on their record. An example of the opression and intimidation tactics used by the Government to continue the legitimised extortion of drug users.

I'll endeavour to keep this blog up to date as the story unfolds.
See you all in court.

Rob Fyffe.