25
WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1987
SPECIFICALLY, THERE WERE NO PRESUMPTIVE LEVELS FOR COCAINE AMPHETAMINE, METHAQUALONE AND QUINALBARBITONE, ALL OF WHICH COULD EXIST IN POWDER FORM, HE SAID.
+THIS AMENDMENT WILL ENABLE THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH MORE EASILY THAT A DEFENDANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THESE DRUGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING,+
AS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS AIMED ENTIRELY AT THE ILLICIT SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, MR JEAFFRESON SAID, +A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS DRUG IN ANY QUANTITY, AND IN ANY FORM, LAWFULLY SUPPLIED OR PRESCRIBED BY A REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER IS EXEMPTED UNDER THE LAW. +
ON THE PRESUMPTION REGARDING DRUGS CONSUMED IN DIVANS,
MR JEAFFRESON SAID AS THE LAW NOW STOOD, +ANY PERSON FOUND IN OR ESCAPING FROM A DIVAN SHALL, UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN SMOKING, INHALING, INGESTING OR INJECTING
A DANGEROUS DRUG THEREIN, BUT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE THAT THE PERSON KNEW THAT THE DRUG INVOLVED WAS A DANGEROUS ONE.
HE SAID THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOUGHT TO INCORPORATE AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION OF PRESUMPTION SO THAT A PERSON FOUND IN A DIVAN SHOULD NOT ONLY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN USING A DANGEROUS DRUG THERE BUT ALSO TO HAVE KNOWN THE NATURE OF THE DRUG.
MR JEAFFRESON SAID THAT THE COURTS AT PRESENT MUST CONSIDER A DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRE REPORT PREPARED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BEFORE IMPOSING ANY CUSTODIAL SENTENCE ON A PERSON CONVICTED OF AN OFFENCE INVOLVING SIMPLE POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS OR EQUIPMENT FOR TAKING DANGEROUS DRUGS.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE COURTS NEED NOT CONSIDER SUITABILITY REPORTS WHEN, IN THE SAME PROCEEDINGS, THE OFFENDER WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF ANOTHER MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE AND WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR MORE THAN NINE MONTHS FOR THAT OFFENCE OR WHEN THE OFFENDER WAS ALREADY IN PRISON SERVING A SENTENCE OF MORE THAN NINE MONTHS.
A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS HAD BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE BILL TO CONFORM WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRES ORDINANCE WHICH STIPULATED THAT IF A PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM A DETENTION ORDER WAS IN FORCE WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF MORE THAN NINE MONTHS, THE FIRST-MENTIONED DETENTION ORDER SHOULD CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT, HE SAID.
DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.
/26