The letter says that the postponement of the amended 8(d) will be for a period of 2 years to allow for evaluation, but that the potential to extend 8(d) "will remain on the statute book" pending evaluation.
13 May 2003
The Home Office posts "official" position on Section 8(d)
The Home Office has written to people who responded to the consulation to Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs ACt 1971, confirming the current Government position. The letter confirms that the Government does not intend to implement 8(d) at this time, prefering to explore alternative powers under the Anti-social Bhevaiour Bill.
The letter says that the postponement of the amended 8(d) will be for a period of 2 years to allow for evaluation, but that the potential to extend 8(d) "will remain on the statute book" pending evaluation.
The letter says that the postponement of the amended 8(d) will be for a period of 2 years to allow for evaluation, but that the potential to extend 8(d) "will remain on the statute book" pending evaluation.
13 March 2003
Section 8 and "Crack Dens:" What the Home Office did next...
Section 8 Amendment: Government adopts new approach?
The launch of the Government's white paper "Respect and Responsibility - Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour" suggests that the Home Office may be adopting a new approach to addressing the use and supply of drugs on premises, following their ill-conceived amendment to Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
There is a great deal in the White Paper that has already prompted controversy, including measures to address with begging. However, the measure of most interest - tempered with some concern - is that regarding premises where the use or supply of drugs is taking place.
This clause has been trailed in the media as being a measure to clamp down on "crack dens." This was the same rationale for the amendment to Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001.
The proposal in the White Paper is a very mixed and needs to be approached with cautious optimism. Firstly, and most importantly, it leaves its scope very wide, and is not focused either on premises where crack is the drug in question, nor, more worryingly, on situations where the concern is about supply, rather than use.
The paper says:
For sometime local authorities, the police and local communities have been frustrated by their lack of powers to close down premises - rented, owner occupied or otherwise - where Class A drugs are being sold and used. We are determined to ensure that the ruin they can cause in communities is stopped.
Rather than the current approach, to pursue criminal proceedings under the Misuse of Drugs Act against the occupiers or managers of such premises, the White Paper proposes a more streamlined approach, which would probably require a lower standard of evidence.
The new powers will give police the power, after consulting the local authority, to issue notice of impending closure, ratified by a court, which will enable the property to be closed within 48 hours and sealed for a fixed period of up to six months. Drug dealers will be dealt with through the courts and the property will be recovered by the landlord.
Effectively, such a piece of legislation would give the police and local authorities the power to evict people from a property within 48 hours, without going through normal channels such as a landlord seeking possession, provided that the police could demonstrate that the use (or supply) of Class A drugs was taking place on the premises.
While the Government is proposing that this legislation be used to address properties where the use or supply of drugs creates a nuisance to communities, the scope of it is such that it could also be used against night-clubs, private citizens, squatters, treatment or housing providers or any other body.
Without seeing more detail as to the nature and scope of the proposed legislation, it is probably premature to condemn the proposal out of hand. Ideally, it would be a well-constrained piece of legislation that would require the police and local authority to demonstrate that nuisance was being caused and that such enforcement was the only solution
Such a piece of legislation would mean that there would be no need to proceed with the commencement of Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as amended by section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice act 2001.
We would like to be able to welcome this proposal in the White Paper, and are glad to see that the Home Office has listened to the very real concerns of the field on this subject.
It would be churlish to criticise the twenty-two months of uncertainty ad confusion that stemmed from the original vote-grabbing decision to amend the law.
However, even though this is still only in the form of a White Paper, there is still substantial cause for concern, and it is far too soon for jubilation. In its loosest form, the proposal would represent a massive extension of police powers, with serious implications for civil liberties. In a constrained form, and as a replacement for Section 8(d) it would be a useful and appropriate measure.
In the meantime, the amended Section 8(d) remains on the statute book, awaiting commencement. The risk is that, in a frenzy to address the perceived drug problem, this piece of legislation is also enacted.
The Home Office should, without further delay, announce that such a commencement order will not be issued. Section 8(d) should then be repealed without any more prevarication, to allow the development of desperately needed harm reduction and housing provision.
In place, a carefully drafted piece of legislation, developed in full consultation with relevant fields, should be introduced in its place. Then, perhaps we can focus on the very necessary work in hand.
The launch of the Government's white paper "Respect and Responsibility - Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour" suggests that the Home Office may be adopting a new approach to addressing the use and supply of drugs on premises, following their ill-conceived amendment to Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
There is a great deal in the White Paper that has already prompted controversy, including measures to address with begging. However, the measure of most interest - tempered with some concern - is that regarding premises where the use or supply of drugs is taking place.
This clause has been trailed in the media as being a measure to clamp down on "crack dens." This was the same rationale for the amendment to Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001.
The proposal in the White Paper is a very mixed and needs to be approached with cautious optimism. Firstly, and most importantly, it leaves its scope very wide, and is not focused either on premises where crack is the drug in question, nor, more worryingly, on situations where the concern is about supply, rather than use.
The paper says:
For sometime local authorities, the police and local communities have been frustrated by their lack of powers to close down premises - rented, owner occupied or otherwise - where Class A drugs are being sold and used. We are determined to ensure that the ruin they can cause in communities is stopped.
Rather than the current approach, to pursue criminal proceedings under the Misuse of Drugs Act against the occupiers or managers of such premises, the White Paper proposes a more streamlined approach, which would probably require a lower standard of evidence.
The new powers will give police the power, after consulting the local authority, to issue notice of impending closure, ratified by a court, which will enable the property to be closed within 48 hours and sealed for a fixed period of up to six months. Drug dealers will be dealt with through the courts and the property will be recovered by the landlord.
Effectively, such a piece of legislation would give the police and local authorities the power to evict people from a property within 48 hours, without going through normal channels such as a landlord seeking possession, provided that the police could demonstrate that the use (or supply) of Class A drugs was taking place on the premises.
While the Government is proposing that this legislation be used to address properties where the use or supply of drugs creates a nuisance to communities, the scope of it is such that it could also be used against night-clubs, private citizens, squatters, treatment or housing providers or any other body.
Without seeing more detail as to the nature and scope of the proposed legislation, it is probably premature to condemn the proposal out of hand. Ideally, it would be a well-constrained piece of legislation that would require the police and local authority to demonstrate that nuisance was being caused and that such enforcement was the only solution
Such a piece of legislation would mean that there would be no need to proceed with the commencement of Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as amended by section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice act 2001.
We would like to be able to welcome this proposal in the White Paper, and are glad to see that the Home Office has listened to the very real concerns of the field on this subject.
It would be churlish to criticise the twenty-two months of uncertainty ad confusion that stemmed from the original vote-grabbing decision to amend the law.
However, even though this is still only in the form of a White Paper, there is still substantial cause for concern, and it is far too soon for jubilation. In its loosest form, the proposal would represent a massive extension of police powers, with serious implications for civil liberties. In a constrained form, and as a replacement for Section 8(d) it would be a useful and appropriate measure.
In the meantime, the amended Section 8(d) remains on the statute book, awaiting commencement. The risk is that, in a frenzy to address the perceived drug problem, this piece of legislation is also enacted.
The Home Office should, without further delay, announce that such a commencement order will not be issued. Section 8(d) should then be repealed without any more prevarication, to allow the development of desperately needed harm reduction and housing provision.
In place, a carefully drafted piece of legislation, developed in full consultation with relevant fields, should be introduced in its place. Then, perhaps we can focus on the very necessary work in hand.
11 February 2003
Government Launches Prospects:
The Government launched its "Prospects" scheme with a low key announcement on the Number 10 website and a verbatim regurgitation of the news on the BBC website. The scheme is intended to address the long--identified gap in services for offenders who missed the CARAT boat by virtue of their shorter senteces but still needed support.
Unfortunately, the briefing from Number 10 was long on rhetoric but short on detail: salient points were:
This seems a bit scetchy; it is not clear if it means that people will be tested; at a guess it means that they will be evicted/breached if use is suspected. In addition, housing would of course be threatened thanks to restrictions under Section 8.
At the end of this period, they will be provided with a further six months tenancy in longer-term accommodation, and will continue to benefit from a support network run by the supplier.
And again, the same problems that dog TST work or Supporting People with Section 8.
The pilot will be tested in Exeter, Preston, Merseyside and the wider Bristol area. Contracts to run the projects have been awarded to UK Detention Services (UKDS), Stonham Housing Association and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO).
While Stonham Housing Group and NACRO are familiar names, UKDS was a new one to us; research reveals that they are part of the multinational "Sodexho Alliance" primarily known for supplying food in a multitude of arenas. Sodexho moved in to the provision of "correctional facilities" . Prisoners working in Sodexho-run facilities (UK, Sodexho run Forest Bank) are paid £14 per week, for jobs such as refurbishing sun-beds for local businesses. Sodexhoe's correctional wing earns in 91million euros in revenue per year.
The website talks about the detail of their drugs provision, in all its sketchy glory:
How are you combating drug use in your facilities?
Each time the government of the country we are operating involves us in this process, we have a program based on education and detoxification.
The following list enlarges upon that statement:
Sodexho was also the company that had responsibility for running the much criticised "voucher scheme" for asylum seekers in the UK.
A trawl on the internet reveals seething disquiet at the role that Sodexho play in the provision of prison services;
http://www.notwithourmoney.org/05_sodexho/sodexho.html
If their drugs work is anything like their catering....
Unfortunately, the briefing from Number 10 was long on rhetoric but short on detail: salient points were:
"The scheme will be available to offenders who:
- are sentenced to less than 12 months
- are persistent offenders, but who do not have a history of serious offences
- have a history of drug misuse
- have tested negative for drug use in prison and who demonstrate a real motivation to be drug free
- may have housing problems
- have a local connection to the catchment area of the premises
This seems a bit scetchy; it is not clear if it means that people will be tested; at a guess it means that they will be evicted/breached if use is suspected. In addition, housing would of course be threatened thanks to restrictions under Section 8.
At the end of this period, they will be provided with a further six months tenancy in longer-term accommodation, and will continue to benefit from a support network run by the supplier.
And again, the same problems that dog TST work or Supporting People with Section 8.
The pilot will be tested in Exeter, Preston, Merseyside and the wider Bristol area. Contracts to run the projects have been awarded to UK Detention Services (UKDS), Stonham Housing Association and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO).
While Stonham Housing Group and NACRO are familiar names, UKDS was a new one to us; research reveals that they are part of the multinational "Sodexho Alliance" primarily known for supplying food in a multitude of arenas. Sodexho moved in to the provision of "correctional facilities" . Prisoners working in Sodexho-run facilities (UK, Sodexho run Forest Bank) are paid £14 per week, for jobs such as refurbishing sun-beds for local businesses. Sodexhoe's correctional wing earns in 91million euros in revenue per year.
The website talks about the detail of their drugs provision, in all its sketchy glory:
How are you combating drug use in your facilities?
Each time the government of the country we are operating involves us in this process, we have a program based on education and detoxification.
The following list enlarges upon that statement:
- Detoxification offered to all requiring it.
- Video about drugs shown to all inmates.
- Extensive community involvement.
- Director is a member of Community Drug Action Team.
- Drug-free accommodation area.
- 250 inmates engaged in voluntary drug testing program.
- Processes to prevent overdosing risk on discharge.
- Measures to prevent smuggling.
- Use of drug dogs.
One would hope for counsellors and trained staff, especially as they move in to this specialized area of work...Sodexho recently extracted itself from its American correctional facilties, and has adopted a policy of not working in regimes which practice the death penalty or where they would be required to carry weapons. This hasn't stopped growing pressure on Sodexho to pull out of this arena altogether.
A trawl on the internet reveals seething disquiet at the role that Sodexho play in the provision of prison services;
"According to the most recent Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts (England & Wales, 2000-2001), Sodexho’s "model" prison at Forest Bank has the highest rate of rate of assaults and the sixth highest rate of positive drug tests among all 40 prisons in its class (Male Local Prisons) http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/corporate/dynpage.asp?Page=516. Meanwhile, the company is also making money locking up refugees, including children, in its new Harmondsworth Detention "
http://www.notwithourmoney.org/05_sodexho/sodexho.html
If their drugs work is anything like their catering....
24 December 2002
Giving beggars the Bird.
Conflicting reports came out regarding comments made by John Bird reported in the press. His comments were in an article by rightwing thinktank Politeia. The thinktanks advisory group includes notable liberal thinkers Michael Howard, Francis Maude and David Willets.
Bird, the founder of the Big Issue, is said to have argued that giving money to people who beg perpetuates the problem, and cannot offer it a solution. Instead he argued for the resources to be made available to address the problem and, when required, coercion be used to prevent people rough sleeping and begging.
John Bird rose to his current position, some would argue, through the legitimised giving that is the Big Issue. And with the Big Issue's lack of move on provision, some would also argue that the Big Issue serves much the same pupose as begging - and with the same problem of entrapping people in a lifestyle.
A few people might even have the timerity to note that staff at the Big Issue enjoy sick leave and paid holidays unlike the vendors, on whose endeavours the Big Issue is propped.
But only the truly cynical would note that with sales in decline, the failure of the Big Issue in LA, and staff redundancies at the Issue, driving people off begging and onto the issue could be the sales boost that they need.
Readers should also remember similar statements made by, amongst others Louise Casey. This heralded the start of the "Begging for Change" campaign, where people could give to charities rather than people who beg. And again the same arguments were used about how people would spend the money on drink and other drugs.
In an ideal world, people would not beg to buy heroin. But with restrictive prescribing practices, people punitively excluded from services, and lack of access for people who are homeless, it is more than understandable that some people will spend some of what they earn on substances.
People are more than entitled to choose to give to people who beg, or choose to give to charities. And, especially at this time of year, I'd rather give to the person on the street than the one in the office.
So happy humbug to you all.
Bird, the founder of the Big Issue, is said to have argued that giving money to people who beg perpetuates the problem, and cannot offer it a solution. Instead he argued for the resources to be made available to address the problem and, when required, coercion be used to prevent people rough sleeping and begging.
John Bird rose to his current position, some would argue, through the legitimised giving that is the Big Issue. And with the Big Issue's lack of move on provision, some would also argue that the Big Issue serves much the same pupose as begging - and with the same problem of entrapping people in a lifestyle.
A few people might even have the timerity to note that staff at the Big Issue enjoy sick leave and paid holidays unlike the vendors, on whose endeavours the Big Issue is propped.
But only the truly cynical would note that with sales in decline, the failure of the Big Issue in LA, and staff redundancies at the Issue, driving people off begging and onto the issue could be the sales boost that they need.
Readers should also remember similar statements made by, amongst others Louise Casey. This heralded the start of the "Begging for Change" campaign, where people could give to charities rather than people who beg. And again the same arguments were used about how people would spend the money on drink and other drugs.
In an ideal world, people would not beg to buy heroin. But with restrictive prescribing practices, people punitively excluded from services, and lack of access for people who are homeless, it is more than understandable that some people will spend some of what they earn on substances.
People are more than entitled to choose to give to people who beg, or choose to give to charities. And, especially at this time of year, I'd rather give to the person on the street than the one in the office.
So happy humbug to you all.
Staffordshire Police and their amazing drug testing computer
It has been widely reported in the press that Staffordshire Police have been using a new drug testing computer to identify people who have been in contact with drugs. Rather than rely on the tried and tested approach of using sniffer dogs, passive or otherwise, Staffs Police wanted to go one better and use Communities Against Drugs (CAD) Money to buy £40,000 of computer equipment to search for people who use drugs.
The big difference between the dogs and the computer is that the computer cannot run around, sniff, and sit down when it smells drugs. Normally, such canine action would give the police the reasonable grounds for a stop and search.
Instead, the police need to ask for permission to swab with you. While a dog sticking it's nose in your crotch has held not to be assault, unwanted swabbing by the police in this situation would not be acceptable.
The twist here is that, while the police cannot force anyone to consent to a swab test, they are suggesting that unwillingness to do so would be considered grounds for suspicion, and so would mean that you may be questioned further.
Liberty has condemned the scheme, but, strangely, old comrades at Release have been strangely silent on the subject.
The following information may be of use too:
1) You are not obliged to give a swab test to the police. Any attempt in this situation to get a swab test result without your consent would constitute assault.
2) Simply refusing to give a swab test would not, itself, constitute grounds for searching on the basis on the grounds of suspicion. While a person could consent to being searched, it seems probable that the police would be exceeding their powers if they attempted to enforce a search based on a refusal to be swabbed.
3) The article says that the machine tests for a range of drugs and includes heroin and rohypnol. It seems likely that the machine, which gives very simple answers, would be unable to differentiate between various benzopidiazepines or opiates; hence there is a high risk of false positives for people who have used or come into contact with lawful substances. We would therefore be concerned that the presence of a positive result would still not in itself be grounds for a search.
4) Landlords in this situation are being put in an intolerable position. The licensing regulations require them to act reasonably to stop use and supply on their premises, and failure to do so could jeopardise a license. But what the police are doing here is coercive and the Institute of Inkeepers should make representations.
5) A positive test can not be used in this situation to prove past possession. But a statement admitting to past possession could be used to convict. So anyone submitting to a test and testing positive should make no statement and should not admit to past-possession.
6) Please pass this on to other people in the area, so that they know their rights.
The big difference between the dogs and the computer is that the computer cannot run around, sniff, and sit down when it smells drugs. Normally, such canine action would give the police the reasonable grounds for a stop and search.
Instead, the police need to ask for permission to swab with you. While a dog sticking it's nose in your crotch has held not to be assault, unwanted swabbing by the police in this situation would not be acceptable.
The twist here is that, while the police cannot force anyone to consent to a swab test, they are suggesting that unwillingness to do so would be considered grounds for suspicion, and so would mean that you may be questioned further.
Liberty has condemned the scheme, but, strangely, old comrades at Release have been strangely silent on the subject.
The following information may be of use too:
1) You are not obliged to give a swab test to the police. Any attempt in this situation to get a swab test result without your consent would constitute assault.
2) Simply refusing to give a swab test would not, itself, constitute grounds for searching on the basis on the grounds of suspicion. While a person could consent to being searched, it seems probable that the police would be exceeding their powers if they attempted to enforce a search based on a refusal to be swabbed.
3) The article says that the machine tests for a range of drugs and includes heroin and rohypnol. It seems likely that the machine, which gives very simple answers, would be unable to differentiate between various benzopidiazepines or opiates; hence there is a high risk of false positives for people who have used or come into contact with lawful substances. We would therefore be concerned that the presence of a positive result would still not in itself be grounds for a search.
4) Landlords in this situation are being put in an intolerable position. The licensing regulations require them to act reasonably to stop use and supply on their premises, and failure to do so could jeopardise a license. But what the police are doing here is coercive and the Institute of Inkeepers should make representations.
5) A positive test can not be used in this situation to prove past possession. But a statement admitting to past possession could be used to convict. So anyone submitting to a test and testing positive should make no statement and should not admit to past-possession.
6) Please pass this on to other people in the area, so that they know their rights.
08 September 2002
Cannabis, The draft ACPO guidance and what it all means:
On the 4th September 2002, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) launched draft guidelines on the policing of cannabis. ACPO had been asked to undertake this task as part of the ongoing review and revision of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The draft Guidelines were announced by Andy Hayman, deputy assistant commissioner with the Metropolitan police and chairman of Acpo's drugs sub-committee. They were widely reported in the press, but the full implications have yet to be considered.
The key proposals in the ACPO guidance are as follows:
It is important to stress that the ACPO guidance is, currently only DRAFT guidance and will be going out for consultation before it becomes any more than a draft.
As well as this process of consultation, several pieces of legislation will also need to be passed by Parliament before the changes can come into effect.
Commentary:
Until the full text of the draft guidance is made availble, it is very difficult to assess the full facts.Unfortunately the ACPO website is not up-to-date and contains no mention of the draft guidance.
Based on what we do know, the following key areas of concern have been identified:
1) Record Keeping and the Courts
In order to make this system work, police forces will have to maintain centralised records of everyone receiving a "formal warning" for cannabis possession. Without this, it will not be possible to determine whether someone has had previous warnings for cannabis possession that year.
In turn this will require that the Police can verify a person's identity before giving them a formal warning. This process will require an amount of Police time to administer the system. It also has civil liberty implications. At the point where the warning is given, a person has not been convicted of an offence. It will be interesting to find out how long this information about warnings will be stored on police computers, and what status this information has. Will it, for example, be passed on to the Criminal Records Bureau, or other bodies.
It is also not clear if this information would be put before a court at a third offence. So if found in possession for a third time, and charged and taken before the court, would the previous two "formal warnings" also be brought up in court. Presumably the courts would be aware that people being brought before them for simple possession would have had previous warnings, and so may be inclined to apply harsher punishments.
2) A return to the Sus Laws?
This law will not be enforced consistently. People who are stopped and searched more frequently will use up their first two strikes faster. So young people, especially from Black and Minority Ethnic groups are likely to be put before the courts more frequently than others people. They get stopped and searched more; they will therefore be found in possession of cannabis more frequently.
3) Disproportionate effect on young people:
Young people already labour under a "Three strikes" law - the Crime and Disorder Act. This piece of legislation means that for a first offence, a young person may receive a reprimand; for a second offence they can receive a final warning and be refered to a Youth Offending Team. For a third offence they will be put before the court. So a young person who is found in possession of cannabis will, under the ACPO guidance, always be arrested. If this is their third offence they will be put before the court and, as a result will receive a criminal record of convicted. The police will have no discretion in this area. We will see a large number of young people criminalised at an early age, with the attendant problems for education and employment.
This will also have an impact on police/school relations. Schools have frequently been developing effective and flexible responses with local police, where police exercise discretion about how and where to intervene. This discretion would be removed by the guidance.
4) Why not just use existing legislation properly?
Much of the so-called "aggravated factors" are covered in other legislation anyway. If someone blows smoke in an officers face, that can be construed as assault. Other behaviour may be construed as breach of the peace, nuisance and so on. If these offences are taking place, they can be dealt with through existing legislation. There is no need to create new, cannabis-specific offences to deal with these issues. What this is really about is the police, desperate to maintain the power to arrest people for cannabis offences.
5) Who makes up drug policy anyway?
One of the most sinister aspects of this is that ACPO seem to have been given carte blanche to write drugs policy. Drug policy should be in the hands of democratic structures. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) should advise Parliament. Parliament, accountable to the people should then develop policy and law and Government departments spend money in accordance with the will of Parliament. Instead, cannabis policy has been handed to ACPO who have written guidance that flies in the face of both the ACMD recomendations and the recomendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
6) This situation is actually worse than before!
Lets assume that these changed go through in the way that ACPO are proposing. Before this, police officers could choose to arrest or not as they saw fit. A number of forces operated informal confiscate and warn policies and, under the Lambeth pilot this approach was formalised. Under the ACPO guidance this discretion is removed. The Guidance will direct police to arrest for a third offence, and allow arrest for a first and second offence. The net result may well be worse than the situation before and finally gives lie to the idea that we are seeing a more liberal approach to cannabis enforcement.
For further information please see:
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,785766,00.html
Media Awareness Project: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1652/a04.html?181
Met Police report in "The Job" http://www.met.police.uk/job/job883/1.htm
Drugscope: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?a=1&intID=829
The draft Guidelines were announced by Andy Hayman, deputy assistant commissioner with the Metropolitan police and chairman of Acpo's drugs sub-committee. They were widely reported in the press, but the full implications have yet to be considered.
The key proposals in the ACPO guidance are as follows:
- when a person is found to be in possession of cannabis for a first time in a year, they may have their cannabis confiscated and be given a "formal warning."
- if the person is found in possession of cannabis a second time in the same year, they may again have their cannabis confiscated and be given a second "formal warning."
- A third offence within the same year will not be treated the same way. Ignoring previous warning will be considered an "aggravating" factor and the person will face arrest and could end up facing a range of penalties and a criminal record.
- Other "aggravating" factors may also result in arrest. These include:
- possession of cannabis by someone under the age of 18
- refusal to hand over cannabis to the police
- when people are found in possession of large quanities of cannabis, this may also result in arrest. (According to Sky News, the guidelines will say that quantities of up to three grammes will be considered to be for personal use. )
- other "aggravated" offences may include possession/use near schools, blowing smoke in a police officer's face and probably other, as yet unspecified actions.
It is important to stress that the ACPO guidance is, currently only DRAFT guidance and will be going out for consultation before it becomes any more than a draft.
As well as this process of consultation, several pieces of legislation will also need to be passed by Parliament before the changes can come into effect.
Commentary:
Until the full text of the draft guidance is made availble, it is very difficult to assess the full facts.Unfortunately the ACPO website is not up-to-date and contains no mention of the draft guidance.
Based on what we do know, the following key areas of concern have been identified:
1) Record Keeping and the Courts
In order to make this system work, police forces will have to maintain centralised records of everyone receiving a "formal warning" for cannabis possession. Without this, it will not be possible to determine whether someone has had previous warnings for cannabis possession that year.
In turn this will require that the Police can verify a person's identity before giving them a formal warning. This process will require an amount of Police time to administer the system. It also has civil liberty implications. At the point where the warning is given, a person has not been convicted of an offence. It will be interesting to find out how long this information about warnings will be stored on police computers, and what status this information has. Will it, for example, be passed on to the Criminal Records Bureau, or other bodies.
It is also not clear if this information would be put before a court at a third offence. So if found in possession for a third time, and charged and taken before the court, would the previous two "formal warnings" also be brought up in court. Presumably the courts would be aware that people being brought before them for simple possession would have had previous warnings, and so may be inclined to apply harsher punishments.
2) A return to the Sus Laws?
This law will not be enforced consistently. People who are stopped and searched more frequently will use up their first two strikes faster. So young people, especially from Black and Minority Ethnic groups are likely to be put before the courts more frequently than others people. They get stopped and searched more; they will therefore be found in possession of cannabis more frequently.
3) Disproportionate effect on young people:
Young people already labour under a "Three strikes" law - the Crime and Disorder Act. This piece of legislation means that for a first offence, a young person may receive a reprimand; for a second offence they can receive a final warning and be refered to a Youth Offending Team. For a third offence they will be put before the court. So a young person who is found in possession of cannabis will, under the ACPO guidance, always be arrested. If this is their third offence they will be put before the court and, as a result will receive a criminal record of convicted. The police will have no discretion in this area. We will see a large number of young people criminalised at an early age, with the attendant problems for education and employment.
This will also have an impact on police/school relations. Schools have frequently been developing effective and flexible responses with local police, where police exercise discretion about how and where to intervene. This discretion would be removed by the guidance.
4) Why not just use existing legislation properly?
Much of the so-called "aggravated factors" are covered in other legislation anyway. If someone blows smoke in an officers face, that can be construed as assault. Other behaviour may be construed as breach of the peace, nuisance and so on. If these offences are taking place, they can be dealt with through existing legislation. There is no need to create new, cannabis-specific offences to deal with these issues. What this is really about is the police, desperate to maintain the power to arrest people for cannabis offences.
5) Who makes up drug policy anyway?
One of the most sinister aspects of this is that ACPO seem to have been given carte blanche to write drugs policy. Drug policy should be in the hands of democratic structures. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) should advise Parliament. Parliament, accountable to the people should then develop policy and law and Government departments spend money in accordance with the will of Parliament. Instead, cannabis policy has been handed to ACPO who have written guidance that flies in the face of both the ACMD recomendations and the recomendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
6) This situation is actually worse than before!
Lets assume that these changed go through in the way that ACPO are proposing. Before this, police officers could choose to arrest or not as they saw fit. A number of forces operated informal confiscate and warn policies and, under the Lambeth pilot this approach was formalised. Under the ACPO guidance this discretion is removed. The Guidance will direct police to arrest for a third offence, and allow arrest for a first and second offence. The net result may well be worse than the situation before and finally gives lie to the idea that we are seeing a more liberal approach to cannabis enforcement.
For further information please see:
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,785766,00.html
Media Awareness Project: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1652/a04.html?181
Met Police report in "The Job" http://www.met.police.uk/job/job883/1.htm
Drugscope: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?a=1&intID=829
Lifeline, injecting kits and the paraphernalia laws
Lifeline, the Manchester-based drugs charity, has been threatened with prosecution under the UKs out-dated paraphernalia legislation. The Charity wants to see a reduction in the spread of Hepatitis C by reducing the incidence of equipment-sharing amongst injecting drug users. Whilst the distribution of clean needles and syringes has ensured that the UK has achieved a relatively low level of HIV amongst injecting drug users, agencies have been warning for a number of years that Hep C will pose a serious threat to health. This has been exacerbated by the sharing of filters, cookers and water.
Lifeline sought to tackle this by proposing the distribution of sterile injecting packs including sterile cookers, filters, swabs and citric acid.
Much of this paraphenalia is already being given out by Lifeline or other bodies. What Lifeline would be doing is bringing the equipment together into on package. However, Greater Manchester Police have warned Lifeline that they would be prepared to prosecute the charity if they proceed with the scheme at present.
Ironically, one of the few recomendations from the Home Affairs Select Committee to be accepted by the Home Office was that the current Section 9 paraphernalia laws needed to be amended as they were contrary to effective harm reduction.
Agencies have currently walked an uneasy line between breaking the paraphernalia laws and delivering effective harm reduction. Given the tardiness which the Government adopts when it comes to revising drugs law, agencies have felt compelled to distribute equipment legally, often seeking approval from local police forces first.
However, Lifeline have been advised by Greater Manchester Police that they could face prosecution if they proceed with the scheme.
Organisations who are confused about the legal position of paraphernalia should read the briefing document in the resources section called "Injecting Equipment and Sharps Bins."
For further information and resources see the links below:
For information about citric acid and setting up local agreements go to:
the Exchange: http://www.saferinjecting.org/citric/citric.html
For coverage of the Lifeline scheme: http://www.lifeline.org.uk
Property People Magazine: http://www.ppmagazine.co.uk/349.html
Guardian: http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,730633,00.html
Third Sector: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news_story.cfm?ID=3806
Lifeline sought to tackle this by proposing the distribution of sterile injecting packs including sterile cookers, filters, swabs and citric acid.
Much of this paraphenalia is already being given out by Lifeline or other bodies. What Lifeline would be doing is bringing the equipment together into on package. However, Greater Manchester Police have warned Lifeline that they would be prepared to prosecute the charity if they proceed with the scheme at present.
Ironically, one of the few recomendations from the Home Affairs Select Committee to be accepted by the Home Office was that the current Section 9 paraphernalia laws needed to be amended as they were contrary to effective harm reduction.
Agencies have currently walked an uneasy line between breaking the paraphernalia laws and delivering effective harm reduction. Given the tardiness which the Government adopts when it comes to revising drugs law, agencies have felt compelled to distribute equipment legally, often seeking approval from local police forces first.
However, Lifeline have been advised by Greater Manchester Police that they could face prosecution if they proceed with the scheme.
Organisations who are confused about the legal position of paraphernalia should read the briefing document in the resources section called "Injecting Equipment and Sharps Bins."
For further information and resources see the links below:
For information about citric acid and setting up local agreements go to:
the Exchange: http://www.saferinjecting.org/citric/citric.html
For coverage of the Lifeline scheme: http://www.lifeline.org.uk
Property People Magazine: http://www.ppmagazine.co.uk/349.html
Guardian: http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,730633,00.html
Third Sector: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news_story.cfm?ID=3806
21 May 2002
Home Affairs Select Commitee Report on drug policy and legislation:
The long awaited Home Affairs Select Committee report into drugs legislation and policy will be publishedon Wednesday the 22nd May 2002.
After ten months of oral and written submissions, the report will offer a series of recomendations to Government on legal and policy issues.
However, anyone expecting a very radical report is liable to be disappointed. Similarly, anyone expecting to see a dramatic change in drug policy or law on the back of this report is also likely to be let down.
According to the rumours and leaks that have been made to date, the most likely suggestions to be made in this report include:
a) a proposal that cannabis be moved from Class B to Class C.
b) an exploration of the value of injecting rooms
c) more flexible prescribing regimes
d) more interventions for crack users
e) better, more systematic access to treatment.
In addition to this we may, if the Commitee were feeling bold, see the following more daring suggestions:
a) calls for a new offence of peer-supply, to differentiate between large scale supply for profit and low level supply,
b) call for Ecstasy and LSD to be reclassified to B
c) criticism of Section 8 of the MDA.
However, in his recent series of cosy fireside chats with Jeremy Paxman, Tony Blair made it clear that decriminalisation was not on the agenda. Despite the proximity of the Select Commitee report, the following exchange made it all to clear what the parameters on Government thinking are:
JEREMY PAXMAN:
Are you having a wholesale re-think of your drugs policy?
TONY BLAIR:
No, but what we are doing is trying to make sure, in particular, that where people are engaged in crime, where they are persistent offenders that they get a choice, as quickly as we can, which is a choice either to take drug rehabilitation treatment or they are liable to go to custody, into prison. Already with these drug treatment testing orders, they have been very successful, about 5,500 to 6,000 of them. For example, there is a young man in Oxford that went on one of these drug treatment testing orders, vehicle crime in the city centre of Oxford was cut by 59% when he had the chance to go into residential rehabilitation rather than back out on the street again. I'm trying to look at now is to get to a situation where if somebody is up for bail and they are a persistent offender and they have a drug problem, then again it is made a measure of whether they should get bail or not as to whether they are prepared to accept drug treatment.
JEREMY PAXMAN:
You are not considering decriminalising any drugs?
TONY BLAIR:
No.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/newsnight/archive/newsid_1988000/1988166.stm
So it would seem that even if the Select Commitee report called for a declassification of cannabis, such a call would be rejected by the Prime Minister.
In many respects, the report, although keenly anticipated, is inconsiquential. Body after body has called for change. Some of these, such as the ACMD, have a statutory role in informing drug policy. They have, at various points, called for change on aspects of legislation and these have been disregarded. The Police Foundation Report was similarly disregarded. As a result there is little to suggest that the reccomendations from the Select Commitee will be given any greater weight than those that have gone before.
If, in your excitement, you wish to view the text of the report, it will be available from 10.00am on the 22nd of May at the following website.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhaff.htm
Responses to the document will be described here as soon as possible after the launch.
After ten months of oral and written submissions, the report will offer a series of recomendations to Government on legal and policy issues.
However, anyone expecting a very radical report is liable to be disappointed. Similarly, anyone expecting to see a dramatic change in drug policy or law on the back of this report is also likely to be let down.
According to the rumours and leaks that have been made to date, the most likely suggestions to be made in this report include:
a) a proposal that cannabis be moved from Class B to Class C.
b) an exploration of the value of injecting rooms
c) more flexible prescribing regimes
d) more interventions for crack users
e) better, more systematic access to treatment.
In addition to this we may, if the Commitee were feeling bold, see the following more daring suggestions:
a) calls for a new offence of peer-supply, to differentiate between large scale supply for profit and low level supply,
b) call for Ecstasy and LSD to be reclassified to B
c) criticism of Section 8 of the MDA.
However, in his recent series of cosy fireside chats with Jeremy Paxman, Tony Blair made it clear that decriminalisation was not on the agenda. Despite the proximity of the Select Commitee report, the following exchange made it all to clear what the parameters on Government thinking are:
JEREMY PAXMAN:
Are you having a wholesale re-think of your drugs policy?
TONY BLAIR:
No, but what we are doing is trying to make sure, in particular, that where people are engaged in crime, where they are persistent offenders that they get a choice, as quickly as we can, which is a choice either to take drug rehabilitation treatment or they are liable to go to custody, into prison. Already with these drug treatment testing orders, they have been very successful, about 5,500 to 6,000 of them. For example, there is a young man in Oxford that went on one of these drug treatment testing orders, vehicle crime in the city centre of Oxford was cut by 59% when he had the chance to go into residential rehabilitation rather than back out on the street again. I'm trying to look at now is to get to a situation where if somebody is up for bail and they are a persistent offender and they have a drug problem, then again it is made a measure of whether they should get bail or not as to whether they are prepared to accept drug treatment.
JEREMY PAXMAN:
You are not considering decriminalising any drugs?
TONY BLAIR:
No.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/newsnight/archive/newsid_1988000/1988166.stm
So it would seem that even if the Select Commitee report called for a declassification of cannabis, such a call would be rejected by the Prime Minister.
In many respects, the report, although keenly anticipated, is inconsiquential. Body after body has called for change. Some of these, such as the ACMD, have a statutory role in informing drug policy. They have, at various points, called for change on aspects of legislation and these have been disregarded. The Police Foundation Report was similarly disregarded. As a result there is little to suggest that the reccomendations from the Select Commitee will be given any greater weight than those that have gone before.
If, in your excitement, you wish to view the text of the report, it will be available from 10.00am on the 22nd of May at the following website.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhaff.htm
Responses to the document will be described here as soon as possible after the launch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
