Cannabis lawful: judgement - 31.3.17

Gentlemen,
Private possession of Cannabis (THC) declared lawful - Full Bench, Western Cape High Court.
Seniors please delete if this is a problem, but thought it might be interesting.
Judge Davis today declared Sections 4(b) and 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act unconstitutional, regarding cannabis. In effect, an adult may now lawfully acquire, possess, cultivate and use cannabis in private premises. Parliament has 24 months to amend the relevant legislation in line with the Constitution. Until then, the judgement creates a defence for anyone charged with acquiring/ possession/ use or cultivating cannabis on private premises. (Prince vs State, Case Number 7295/13)

Legal to use, legal to buy/grow?

www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/dagga-ca...court-rules-20170331

April Fools maybe?

Sent via Tapatalk using carrier pigeons.

its still not legal 100% this is only basis to a defense if you are caught with it.

it will take up to two years now for Parliament to amend the law, meaning its legal to possess, smoke and cultivate in the privacy of your own home, the cops are still able to nab you but you can now use this as a defense until the act is amended (court has told Parliament to do so in a two year time frame)

the hope is that cops will just not bother dragging your ass to court and blah blah blah in the mean time for weed at home - hopefully focus on serious crime instead

hope this clears it up for you pot heads

milled.co.za/2017/03/31/dont-light-dagga-yet/

Of course a court cannot 'create law'. But all courts can and do interpret existing law - daily - and that's exactly what the WCape High court did. South African common law recognises the principle of 'Stare Decisis' - meaning courts must follow previous decisions by courts of equal/higher jurisdiction - therefore the Prince decision - a Full Bench of a High Court - binds a whole lot of courts until it's set aside on Appeal..
The last paragraph of the Prince judgement explicitly creates a defense to charges in terms of Sections 4 & 5 (b) - it does not change the Act. Institution of a prosecution on facts falling within that defense would amount to malicious prosecution, giving rise to a claim for damages. For a prosecution to be bona fide, the State (the State means all organs of the State - including the police) must have reasonable grounds to anticipate a conviction - that's clearly not the case now. The judgement is a public document - 66 pages in PDF..