Drug Abuse

Part 2 CHAPTER THREE CASE HISTORIES

Case 1
15.7.67
John, 19, trainee psychiatric worker
Edgware, Middx.
Possession of cannabis Hendon Police Station Hendon Magistrates' Court 31.7.67
Legal representation
Bail — father, legal aid refused. Release paid 10 costs.

Result
The charges were not pressed by the police; the cannabis was "herbal mixture"!

Previous convictions

None.

Remarks

John was searched in the street and when nothing was found on him the police allegedly found a "warm reefer" on the pavement close by. He was taken to the police station and charged with possession of cannabis. His father stood bail and contacted Release. Release was able to arrange for a Solicitor to be in court to represent John the following morning.

It is quite feasible that had there been no solicitor in court, the police would have gone ahead with the charge. Faced with a defended case, the decision must have been made to drop, the charge, and the "herbal mixture" story was given as a reason not to proceed.

It is difficult to imagine that someone would throw away a cigarette containing herbal mixture, substantiating John's story that he was planted.

Case 2
15.7.67 David, 20 Ann, 20 Jane, 17 Paul, 23
John, 20 Sarah, 22 James, 21

All charged with possession of the one piece of cannabis found.
Hampstead Police Station
Hampstead Magistrates' Court 22.8.67
Legal representation. Legal aid granted.

Remarks
The house was raided by the police with dogs but only one swill piece of cannabis was found on a roof outside one of the windows. Cigarette ends and some pen knives were taken away to be analysed and eight of the nine people present were charged with possession of the one piece of cannabis found. Sarah and Jane (17) were remanded in Holloway because Sarah's surety could not get to the court in time, 4.nd one of Jane's sureties had not been contacted. One of the people who Jane put forward as a surety was her mother in Salisbury. The police contacted her mother and she was told that her daughter was being held on a drugs charge in London and that her name had been put forward as a surety for the sum of £50. We spoke to Jane's mother on the telephone and she was quite confused, clearly under the impression that she had to part with £50 on the spot. We told her where Jane was being held, which naturally shocked her, but we said that we would find a surety for Jane and send her home. The police had seriously mishandled the question of Jane's surety, causing her to spend two days unnecessarily in Holloway.
At Hampstead police-station no-one who had been arrested was allowed to make a telephone call and when they asked the police if they could ring friends at International Times or the UFO club to arrange sureties, they were told that no-one connected with either would be acceptable. The case was dismissed as there was not enough evidence to substantiate the charges but the magistrate stated that there was no criticism of the police for bringing the prosecution.

Case 3
16.7.67
David, 19, 2nd year psychology student
Bristol
Possession of amphetamines
Possession of an offensive weapon
Cannon Row Police Station
Bow Street Magistrates' Court 18.7.67 and 8.8.67 Legal representation. Legal aid.
Result
Amphetamine charge dropped — analysis negative (the drugs were not illegal). Offensive weapon charge dropped (offensive intent not proven).
Result
Case dismissed.

Previous convictions None

Remarks

David was stopped and searched. An ordinary lock-knife was in his pocket and he had three pills in his wallet. He was taken to Cannon Row police station and charged with possession of amphetamines and with possession of an offensive weapon. Because David was only in London for the week- end, it was difficult to arrange a surety for him, but after *raking to him it was clear that he was not an addict, and Release bailed him out of Ashford Remand Centre where he had been for four days. He stayed with Release until his case came up in court.

In court the police dropped the amphetamine charge because the analysis was negative (the pills were ephedrine). The weapon charge was dropped because there was no proof of offensive intent. David was advised by the magistrate to hand in the knife at the police state and upon doing so he was told by the police, that had he not taken this advice, he would have been re-arrested. He was also told that "his sort should not get off scot free" and that if he ever returned to the area, he would be 'arrested, and it would be made certain that he was found guilty.

 

Case 4   
19.7.67

Mike, 19 years, unemployed

Simon, aged 17, unemployed

Steve, 25 years, unemployed

David, 22 years, unemployed

Peter, 20 years, unemployed

Jane, 29 years, journalist

Ann, 18 years, employed

Mike Possession cannabis and LSD, allowing premises be used

Simon - Possession cannabis and LSD

Steve - Possession 1 lb. cannabis, obstruction

David Possession 1 lb. cannabis, obstruction

Peter - Possession tablets

Jane - Possession cannabis

Anne - Possession LSD

West London Court, September 1967

Inner London Session, 20th-22nd December 1967 Legal representation. Legal Aid.

Results
Mike and Simon, borstal. Anne two years' probation. Jane nine months, reduced to absolute discharge on appeal. Steve, David and Peter did not answer bail and probably left the country.

Previous convictions
Mike - previous larceny
Simon - previous larceny and drugs Steve - none
David - none Peter - none
Roger - previous drugs
Jane and Anne - none.

Remarks
The police broke down the door Of the flat and found - several people there. While the raid was in progress David and Steve came to the gate of the house. They were pushed down the steps by a policeman who informed them that because they were now on the premises they could be 7: searched. Steve was later charged with being in possession ..-of one pound of cannabis and David was later also charged with possession of the substance that had been found on Steve. Of the thirteen people taken to the police station only I six were charged.

In court it was said that most of the LSD and cannabis in the flat belonged to an Indian who had been staying there. By the time the case came to Sessions this Indian had been arrested elsewhere and convicted on a drugs charge and had left the country. Mike and Simon pleaded not guilty. The premises were in their name but they claimed to have no knowledge of what was there. However, they were found guilty and sentenced to borstal, and the judge said that had they been old enough he would have sent them to prison for a very long time. While on bail, Mike had again been arrested for another drugs offence and been given a small fine. Steve, David and Peter did not surrender to bail and were thought to have left the country.
Ann pleaded guilty to the small quantity of LSD she had been charged with and called her father as a character witness. When arrested she had only been in London two weeks, having come down to find a job, as her family were emigrating to Australia. However, because of the case they decided to remain in the country until it was over. Jane pleaded guilty to possessing a small quantity of cannabis. She was a journalist investigating the drug world for a newspaper and was able to call witnesses to substantiate this defence. Her Counsel, believing that he had an easy case, thought it unnecessary to call the witnesses, but Jane was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment. Up to this time she had used a lawyer that she had found for herself, but after her sentence she asked Release to help her find another solicitor to handle het appeal. The judge heard the appeal eight weeks later and taking into account that this was her first offence, and that the cannabis was purchased in the course of searching for material for a newspaper article, reduced the sentence, which he described as "wholly wrong", to an absolute discharge.

Case 5

28.1.68
Henry, 22
Middx.
Possession of cannabis — 6.5 grains

Ealing Broadway Police Station

Ealing Magistrates' Court 31.7.67 and 21.8.67. Bail £10, father
Legal representation — legal aid not granted.

Result
£100 fine, £10 costs, to be paid at £5 per week.

Previous convictions
Petty larceny.

Remarks

Henry was taken from a public house by two plain clothes policemen who said that the superintendent of Ealing Broadway police station wanted to see him. On arriving at the police station he was taken into the interrogation room where he learned that he was to be searched for drugs. While one of the policemen was out of the room he was searched by the other who alleged that he had found a small piece of cannabis tucked in Henry's belt. Henry was hi the station for about three hours, but his friends who came to make enquiries were turned away, after being told that he had not been charged, when in fact a charge had been made against him
Although Henry had previous convictions for larceny and for taking and driving away, this wag his first offence for two years. In court the probation officer gave him a good report, and said that while on probation he had been co-operative.
Although he states that he was definitely not carrying any drugs, and pleaded not guilty in court, he was given the .£100 fine with £10 costs.
Henry seems to have made a substantial effort •to straighten out his life and was not so worried by the very large fine as the conviction added to his record.

Case 6
3.8.67

Kenneth, aged 23
London
On sick pay at time of arrest owing to a badly cut hand

Possession of heroin
West End Central Police Station ,
Bow Street Magistrates' Court, 10.8.67, 13.9.67

Legal representation. Legal aid.

Result
Two years' probation.
Previous convictions

Convictions and probation.

Remarks
Kenneth was an addict with previous convictions. He had received treatment at Woodside and Cainhill' and he had previously been on probation. His uncle and brother were also addicted to heroin. Kenneth had been in the army and during one leave he went around with his brother who introduced him to drugs. His subsequent addiction caused him to be discharged from the army. He seems to have had little contact with his parents and had an unhappy affair with a Married woman who tried to stop his addiction.
In Court the magistrate was influenced by Kenneth's good appearance, and granted him bail but his mother was distressed by this, explaining that his father had thrown him out of the house and said he could never return. Kenneth's mother telephoned her husband who remained adamant on point, and bail had to be reconsidered. Kenneth was remanded in Brixton for medical and probation reports.
As a result of these reports, he was sent to a hostel and the final result of the case was to be influenced by a report from the hostel. This was favourable and Kenneth was put on two years' probation, part of which was to be spent in the hostel.
This is an almost perfect example of how a lawyer can influence the way in which an addict is treated. If Kenneth had not had legal representation, he would probably have been sent to prison. Under supervision from the hostel he was given the chance to find the strength to cure himself of his dependence on drugs.

Case 7
12.8.67

Sandra, 21, private school teacher Kent
Possession heroin
West End Central Police Station
Bow Street Magistrates' Court, 14.9.67
Legal representation. Legal aid not applied for.

Result
Two years' probation

Previous convictions None.

Remarks
Sandra was stopped in her car after the police had seen the boy she was with buy drugs (heroin) in Piccadilly. The boy, Sandra's boyfriend, passed the packet to her, but they were approached by the police and Sandra was seen by the police to put the packet under the driving seat. On being  searched, needles were found in her handbag. The trerati was found under the driving seat but the boy ran—away and the police did not find him. Although he was known to the police he was not mentioned in the case again.

Sandra was taken to West End Central Police Station with a girl friend who was also in the car, but who had no ' drugs on her. This girl was released and a friend of hers telephoned Release (2.30 a.m.) who bailed Sandra for £25. After collecting her car, which was at Tottenham Court Road Police Station, Sandra drove home her bailer and went to stay with friends.

The next morning, Sandra asked for a remand, and was -granted bail. She was trying to cover for her boyfriend, whose heroin she had. He had a record of drug offences and• a further offence would have meant, she thought, imprisonment. It was impossible for her to "shop" her boyfriend, especially as the police had made no attempt to find him. (He was staying in the same house as her.) To give his name and whereabouts would amount to a complete betrayal.

When the case came before the court again, the magistrate took a very serious view of the fact that she was an "addict" in contact with children, and before continuing further asked for Sandra to be seen by a probation officer. It had been anticipated that Sandra's involvement with children would go seriously against her, even though her solicitor stressed that she was not an addict, but the fact that the magistrate had asked for Sandra to have a probation report seemed reassuring.

Sandra left the dock and in the ante-room, with other prisoners and police, waited for the probation officer to come from another case. The probation officer was briefed by the court as to the situation, then in front of all the waiting prisoners and police officers began a verbal attack on Sandra regarding the degradation of using 'heroin and the disgrace of a girl like her being involved with children, As a result of this, and the pressure of the whole situation,

Sandra burst into tears - she was embartassed as much as else by being spoken to in public - and she refused to speak further with the probation officer. She had also been asked by another detective of the Drug Squad, not in, ; volved with her case, for the name of her boyfriend. The probation officer told the magistrate that Sandra was "woo, operative", but it was decided to grant bail, pending reports, rather than remand her in custody! We think that if she had not had legal representation, she would have been remanded , to custody, as by that time she was completely unable to - speak for herself.

Sandra left the court with her surety who was very worried by her confused state. She had been told by the probation officer not to take any notice of her solicitor, and her confidence was greatly undermined. Over coffee she explained her situation which seemed typical of many other cases handled by Release. Sandra was adopted when she was very small, but since adolescence had felt inadequate, enhanced by the realisation that she was not with her natural parents. She had lived away from home intermittently, living with friends in London when she was not working. It was here that she met her boyfriend who was involved with the junkie scene.

The outcome of such a case can go a long way to determine whether a person can cope with their problem without resorting to drugs. To have been treated by the probation officer in the manner that Sandra was, could have had disastrous effects. In fact, she did react against the complete lack of understanding, and the fear of once more bringing her failure to the notice of her parents made her attempt to commit suicide. She was in hospital, unconscious, for three days, making it impossible to complete the reports required for court.

Her parents had been visited by the probation officer, and Sandra's father went to court with her and took over bail from Release.

The probation officer was much more helpful when the case was eventually heard and Sandra was put on probation for two years.

Case 8
22.8.67

Bruce, 26, musician
London
Possession of cannabis
Harrow Road Police Station

Marylebone Magistrates' Court

Legal representation. Legal aid.
Result
£30 fine, two weeks to pay.
Previous convictions
Possession of cannabis and assaulting a police officer

22.8.67
London, Susan, 22- nurse
Stealing medicine from her employers
Harrow Road Police Station
Marylebone Magistrates' Court, August 16, 23, 30 Bail £25
Legal representation. Legal aid.
Result
Conditional discharge for one year.

Previous convictions None.

Remarks
The police were outside the door when Susan arrived home. She let them in and they found Bruce in the flat. He made no attempt to avoid discovery of the cannabis, and the prosecution maintained that he freely admitted that he smoked cannabis, but that there was no evidence to indicate, that he had introduced Susan to the drug.
The medicines that Susan had stolen from her employers were not restricted; there was nothing to indicate that she was involved in drugs in any way.
The magistrates accepted the fact that Bruce had not involved Susan in his offence, as a point very much in his favour, and said that had there been any evidence to the contrary, he would not have hesitated to impose the maximum sentence. The magistrate also took into account the fact that Bruce had spent a week in custody before he was allowed bail.
This case indicated clearly the importance of being defended by a lawyer. Before Bruce was represented he was not allowed bail, but on being represented he was granted bail and even though he had a previous drug offence charge (and is coloured), he was fined and not sent to prison as could have been anticpiated had he not been represented.

Case 9
30.8.67
William, 23, Artist
Oxford
Possession of cannabis
Holborn Police Station - arrested by a trainee det. constable Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court, 26.8.67, then remanded in Brixton until 4.9.67
Legal representation. Legal aid.
Result
Conditional discharge for one year.
Previous convictions None.

Remarks
William was stopped and searched and then taken to Holborn Police Station and charged with possession of cannabis. In his possession were also his girlfriend's pills, but . because he did not have a charge sheet, his solicitor did not know whether he would be charged with possession of both these substances. (His girlfriend had a prescription for the pills, but he was technically in possession at the time.)
At the first hearing, when he ,was unrepresented, not wanting to implicate the friends with whom he was staying, he gave the impression that he was of no fixed address, and was thus refused bail. If he had been represented at the time it would be reasonable to suppose. that he would not have spent a week in Brixton.

Case 10
1.9.67

Richard, 21, typographical consultant London
Possession of LSD (70 trips)
West End Central Police Station
Bow Street Magistrates' Court, 15.9.67, bail £250— father

Legal representation. Legal aid refused.
Result
£70 fine.

Previous convictions None.

Remarks
Richard received a telephone call from someone called Toby who described himself as a friend of Bill's. Richard then rang Bill to check on Toby and on being told that Toby was indeed known to Bill, rang Toby and arranged to meet him. Richard des scribed himself In great detail so that Toby should know him when they met.
When Richard arrived at the place they had arranged to meet, Toby was not there, but the police were. Richard was asked to set up the same sort of trap or else he would be accused of "pushing". This he refused to do. He appeared in court and the police solicitor used his good job as a point against him, saying that Richard was "greedy" and not fit to hold a position of such responsibility. The fact that he was about to be married probably helped to keep him out of prison, although the police tried to make it appear that his fianncée was saying that they were to be married only in order to keep him out of prison. He was described as "uncooperative" presumably because of his refusal to set a similar trap to the one which had caught him. However, he was seen by the probation officer whose report was favourable.

'Case 11
8.9.67
Chris, 23, shop assistant
Peter, 17
Possession of LSD
A Magistrates' Court
Legal representation, bail refused, legal aid granted. The solicitor was assigned by the Court.
Results
Chris — three months' imprisonment.

Peter — two years' probation.
Previous convictions
Peter — none
Chris — petty larceny.
Remarks
Chris was remanded in Brixton - Release was told of his arrest and a solicitor went to see him. However by this time he had seen the solicitor allocated to him by the Court. This solicitor acted for Chris and Peter, but in Peter's defence he said that if the Court was told where Peter had obtained the LSD, his client would get knifed in the back. The Court were told about "a massive organisation pushing LSD". The dramatic feeling engendered by this "defence" may account for the Court's severity in regard to Chris. This case made it very clear to us how very important it is not to use a solicitor who has been allocated by the Court.

Case 12
3.9.67

David, 19, scientific assistant at a museum London
Possession cannabis, LSD, opium and an opium pipe

Kensington Police Station
West London Magistrates' Court, 4.9.67, 11.9.67

Legal representation. Legal aid granted, bail granted on condition that David went home to Bristol.
Result
'£25 fine on the cannabis charge, LSD and opium counts (£75 in all). A conditional discharge on the opium pipe count.

Previous convictions None.

Remarks
As the result of a telephone call, David arranged to meet "Lebonese Larry" (later convicted for pushing) at Earls Court Tube Station. When he arrived there together with a girl, waiting to meet his contact, he was approached by two policemen with warrants. On the way to the police station he heard one of the policemen remark to the girl, "God, you really look hooked and "How often do you use the needle?
Threats were made to the girl in order to make her give evidence to convict David of pushing but she was later released. In the morning a girl and a friend tried to arrange bail and were not allowed to speak to David and he was not given any of their messages. He was able to contact his father and was allowed to talk to John until' the police realised he was from Release.

Case 13
16.9.67

Paul, 23- musician

Mary, 17 - no occupation 2 London

Dispute with Landlord
Paul had been arrested on a charge of possession of methedrine and as he and Mary were to move into a new flat at the weekend, he gave the police that address. The Ealing police sent a constable to the house at 7 a.m. to check up on the address. The landlord was worried about the visit and telephoned the police station. The police informed him of the situation and this caused him to refuse access to the flat when Paul and Mary arrived on the Saturday.
Mary telephoned Release and was directed to a court where a solicitor was appearing that afternoon. When the solicitor's case was over he took her back to his office. On :learning that Paul and Mary had paid rent in advance and had a contract stating terms etc. he wrote a letter to the landlord informing him of the penalties he was liable to if he , continued to refuse access to the flat. When the landlord saw the letter he let them into their fiat with no further delay.
Two weeks later Paul phoned the solicitor. The landlord had been using threats to them and had even gone to the lengths of banging on the locked door with a hammer. The sollicitor went round to the fiat immediately and saw the marks on the door. The landlord tried to say that the marks had always been there, but the solicitor noticed that there were marks on the lock which Mary had changed only the week before. She had done this as she believed that the landlord, who had a duplicate key to the old lock, was entering the flat in her absence.
The solicitor went to Ealing Police Station but the police refused to help. In fact, the Station Sergeant seemed genuinely surprised to learn that intimidation of this kind is a criminal offence and seemed to think that only civil remedies could be taken.
Paul and Mary left the flat, because of the continuing hostility from the landlord, in spite of the fact that they had every right to stay.

Case 14
24.9.67

Brian, 24, Assistant Stage Manager before hospitalisation London
Possession of cannabis
Marylebone Magistrates' Court, 27.9.67. Bail granted

Legal Aid, 17.12.67
Notting Hill Police Station
Legally advised.

Result
Two year conditional discharge.

Previous convictions
None.

Remarks
Brian had been a voluntary patient in Henderson Hospital, Surrey, recovering from methedrine addiction. He was arrested with a small quantity of cannabis in his possession as he was returning to the hospital one afternoon. As the rules for voluntary patients state that an absence of seventy-two hours constitutes voluntary dismissal and his arrest caused him to exceed the seventy-two hours, he felt that he could not return to the hospital and thus had no address. He was not allowed to telephone the hospital from the police station to tell them where he was, or make arrangements for bail. He was kept in the police station overnight and after his court appearance, sent to Brixton. Bail cannot be granted when a person has no fixed address, but he was allowed bail when a friend told the court, on the second remand that Brian could stay with him. Brian would otherwise have spent two months in custody appearing and being remanded every eight days, until the court finally heard the case.
The probation report was favourable and the medical report recommended probation but Brian, who represented himself at the final hearing, was given a conditional discharge for two years.

Case 15
29.9.67 Ann, 18 Arthur, 23
Roger, 20 Bill, 20 London
Possession of cannabis
Kentish Town Police Station
Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court, 29.9.67, 13.10.67, 19.10.67 Bail granted for Ann
Legal representation. Legal Aid.
Result
Arthur four months' imprisonment, Roger and Bill £30 fine, Ann two years' probation.
Previous convictions

All had previous convictions.

Remarks

The police came to the room that Ann and Arthur were sharing with Roger and Bill. They had a warrant, but as fir as Arthur could judge from the brief glimpse he was allowed, the names of the present occupants were not among those on it. It is believed that the warrant was issued for the premises. It is no longer necessary to write the names of police officers on search warrants (D.D.A. 1967). Arthur and Ann were registered addicts and all four denied that the cannabis was theirs and claimed that it was planted.
On 19th October Ann's case could not be heard because she had not seen the probation officer — although she had waited over an hour to make an appointment. This displeased the magistrate who wanted to remand her in custody, but her solicitor made strong representations to the contrary, and she was allowed bail. The others had already been remanded in custody. Roger and Bill would have been allowed bail if they could have found sureties of £100 each, ,but they found it difficult to carry on with their attempts to trace sureties once they arrived in Ashford. At the hearing, when it was known that Arthur, Ann and Roger were registered addicts, a medical report was thought necessary. Bill Was also remanded for a medical report and not allowed bail at his second hearing, although there was no suspicion that he was addicted. His solicitor protested about this, to no avail, and states that no medical report for Bill was forthcoming at the trial.
The probation officer gave Arthur a very bad probation report, and remarked to Ann when she finally had her interview that she had, perhaps, been a little too hard on him. She had said, among other things that he had only just scraped through probation the last time and that he was aimless. Arthur was brought off heroin in Brixton Hospital but Roger says that he had no medical supervision during his withdrawal in Ashford Remand Centre. A person's hair is not cut in Ashford, if he is waiting to be tried. But if he has pleaded "guilty" and the magistrate has remanded him for medical or probation reports before sentencing, his hair will be compulsorily cut to the regulation length of short back and skies, even though the magistrate will eventually fine him, as in Roger's case. Objection to the hair cut leads to some form of punishment
Roger had told the probation officer that Arthur had introduced him to heroin. Arthur had in fact introduced him to the doctor with whom the three were registered. This statement and Arthur's record must have caused the magistrate to regard him with more severity than the others.
Roger's post office savings book was taken from the fiat by the police in his absence. His other personal possessions were returned after the case, but he had to Call several time at the police station to get them as the officer who had dealt with his case was the only person who could return them to him.

Case 16
14.11.67
Christine, 39, employed
Trevor, 30, employed
London
Possession LSD (Christine)
Possession 4 amps. methedrine (Trevor) West End Central Police Station
Bow Street Magistrates' Court
Legal representation. Legal Aid.
Results
Christine two years' probation, Trevor (30) two years' probation on the condition that he went home to stay with his father!
previous Convictions. None.

Remarks
Christine (married) and Trevor were about to have supper on Sunday 12th November 1967 when several plain clothes policemen and one policewoman with dogs and spectograph. • raided their flat. The door was open and they entered without knocking and proceeded to search the flat. They found a bottle containing a small amount of LSD in a drawer. Christine and Trevor were not allowed to eat their supper and were taken to the police station where they were both searched and charged along with five other people whom they did not know. Christine was kept in the station cell until morning, when she appeared in court and was permitted to telephone to find a surety. Her surety arrived after she had left court and so she was taken to Holloway and finally released at 6 p.m. on Monday evening. Trevor was
not allowed bail, but we advised Christine to see a solicitor who was able to arrange bail for Trevor.

Case 17
20.11.67
Thomas, 23, unemployed
Cheltenham
Possession of cannabis
Cheltenham Police Station Cheltenham Magistrates' Court Unrepresented.
Result
£50 fine. 3 months' suspended sentence.
Previous Convictions
Attempted burglary June, 1967. £15 fine.

Remarks

The following is an extract from a letter received from Thomas.
"I was served with the accompanying summons this afternoon; it concerns traces (of cannabis) found on three articles after a recent raid on my pad. (Have since been evicted as a result.) The traces were on a knife in the pocket of a suede jacket and on one other article out of a list of 31 suspected articles.
"I don't dispute that traces were probably found but it is the strangeness of the raid which makes me wonder if perhaps I could not contest the charges and plead not guilty.
"The fuzz were all ready in the pad when my wife and I came in; about eight or nine of them and had been there about one hour. The inspector in charge claimed that they were quite within their rights as they had obtained permission from the landlord and a key. . . . They claimed to be - quite within their legal rights as they were accompanied by the landlord's appointed agent. On enquiring from the girl who lived upstairs I found out that she had let them in sometime between 2.30 and 3.10 p.m. We did not come in until 3.30 p.m. Wonder is there anything you can do?"
We wrote back to Thomas, explaining that although it must have seemed rather unreasonable for the police to enter his flat in the way that they did, he could do nothing about it as they were within their rights to do so. If the analyst ' found traces on the knife he would have to plead guilty but as the amount of cannabis found was negligible he would not be dealt with very severely.
We advised him to see a solicitor, and the three months' suspended sentence could be the result of his not doing

Case 18
9.1.68 John, 24 London Possession of cannabis (0.004 grains)
West Hampstead Police Station
Hampstead Magistrates' Court, £5 "police" bail Legally represented.
Result
E25 fine.
Previous Convictions
Seven (not all drugs offences).

Remarks

The police had visited John's flat three times in the same -week and finally found some minute traces of cannabis in an athtray. For anyone else it would not have been serious but with seven previous convictions it was difficult to know how the magistrate would react! The police must have been very keen to arrest John, who is coloured, but they delayed charging him until after the analysis had been made. This is correct procedure but is rarely followed in London.
This case illustrates how a coloured man, with several previous convictions, can be harassed and victimised by the police. The prosecution was hardly worth the result.
It is interesting to note that John, though intelligent and articulate, knew very little about court procedure, in spite of the fact that he had appeared in court many times before. This indicates to what extent police can take advantage of a person's ignorance by keeping them unaware of exactly what is happening and why.

Case 19
13.1.68
Andrew, 21, unemployed
London
Possession of cannabis
Hammersmith Police Station West London Court, 20.1.68 Legal representation. Legal aid.
Result
Case dismissed.
Previous Convictions None.

Remarks

Andrew was arrested at his flat and it was alleged by the police that cannabis was found under his pillow. Andrew denied all Inowledge of the cannabis. The police searched his flat the previous week and had found nothing. Since then Andrew had stayed at his girl friend's flat. The landlord had given Andrew four days' notice to leave the premises and because of this the defence solicitor implied that some other person could have been responsible for the cannabis.

The magistrate said in judgement that drug cases were analogous to receiving cases and that the onus of proof, to some extent, shifted to the defendant where drugs were found in premises which were in the exclusive control of the defendant, such as his own room. It was for the defendant to eve a reasonable explanation in these circumstances for the drugs being in his room or in his possession, and if he did so, it was open to the prosecution to rebut his evidence; In addition, once an explanation which might be reasonable had been given, the onus of proof then switched back to the prosecution. Andrew' pleaded not guilty and the case was dismissed.

Case 20

16.1.68
Mary, 18, unemployed
Tom, 18, Registered Addict London
Possession of heroin (1 grain) West End Central Police Station Bow Street Magistrates' Court Bail — parents — £50 each
Legal representation. Legal aid.
Results
Tom dismissed — pleaded not guilty. Mary, three years' conditional discharge — pleaded guilty.
Previous Convictions Mary — none
Tom — yes.

Remarks
Mary and Tom were stopped after they came out of a coffee bar at Leicester Square, where Tom had scored 1 grain of heroin from what the prosecution described as a "known addict". The transaction had taken place in the women's lavatory with money that Tom had given to Mary. She was still carrying the heroin when they were arrested. Throughout, Tom maintained that the heroin was his and that it was all his fault, and that the heroin had been paid for by hirn. for himself.

They were both remanded on bail of £50. Tom's father stood bail for him but Mary's parents, shocked by the event and worried because she had a younger brother, did not want her at home and therefore did not come forward as sureties. However, after the first week's remand, Release persuaded them to act as sureties on the understanding that she stayed elsewhere in accommodation to be found by Release and Father Leech of St Anne's, Soho. A room was found in a flat with some other girls.
At the hearing, Mary pleaded guilty and Tom not guilty. Because of Tom's previous convictions it was submitted that he had never, in fact, been in possession of the heroin. It had been held throughout by Mary, who intended to allow him to have it in small doses. Tom was attending the Charing Cross Clinic and hoped to be cured.
The case against Tom was dismissed on the technical point that he had never been in possession of the heroin. The court noted the fact that he had tried to accept full responsibility and conditionally discharged Mary for three . years' taking into account that she had spent a week in custody in Holloway.

Case 21
6.4.68

Barry, 19, Editor of a community newspaper Mary, 19, unemployed

Mervyn, 18, unemployed

Paul, 19, unemployed.
London

Barry — possession of cannabis — allowing his premises to be used

Mary — possession of cannabis

Mervyn — possession of cannabis ,

Paul — possession of cannabis

The charges against 24 others were dropped
Ladbroke Grove Police Station Masylebone Magistrates' Court, 15.5.68
Sessions, 6.8.68
Legal representation. Legal aid.
Results
Mervyn— Conditional discharge at Inner London Sessions

Paul - £10 fine at Magistrates' .Court

Barry—Borstal at Inner London Sessions

Mary — Probation 2 years at Inner London Sessions.

Previous Convictions

Barry six convictions, one for drugs

Mary — none
Mervyn — one obstruction offence

Paul — none.

Remarks

Barry's flat was raided in April when there were 29 people on the premises. All but one of them, a Russian Orthodox Priest, were arrested and charged with possession of cannabis resin. Only a small amount of cannabis was found in the flat and the charges against 24 of those arrested were dropped at Committal Proceedings five weeks later. Many had spent several weeks in custody because they were unable to find suitable sureties to bail them out. Paul, Barry. Mary and Mervyn were the only ones who were finally charged. Mervyn and

Paul were charged with possession of cannabis and pleaded guilty. Barry and Mary were charged with possession of cannabis and for allowing their premises to be used. They pleaded not guilty to possession and when their case was heard at the Inner London Sessions before a jury, they were found not guilty of possession, but guilty of allowing their premises to be used. The case was remanded So that probation and medical reports could be obtained. Mary was allowed bail, but Barry was remanded in custody.

Before the case was heard we had contacted three people who knew Barry very well. One was a psychiatrist and two were priests, and all three had helped Barry with ideas for his newspaper which was beginning to play an important part in the community where it was produced.

These people were character witnesses for Barry when , the case was heard, but their evidence did not persuade the judge that he should follow any other course bthan that whgich the probation officer had recommended. The probation officer's report to the judge recommended that Barry would benefit from a period of borstal training
Mary was put on probation for two years and Barry was sentenced to borstal which meant thatr he would be in the overcrowded Borstal Allocation Wing of Wormwood Scrubs Prison f many months before he as actualy sent to a borstal..

Case 22
12.6.68

James, 17, unemployed

Possession of 0.5 oz. cannabis

Oxford Magistrates' Court

Legal representation.

Result

£30 fine

Petty larceny.

Remarks

James had not seen his mother since he was 11 years old, when he was sent to a mental hospital. He was there for three years, often in wards with adult patients, and since then had spent most of his life in institutions and hospitals. Because of this he has had no formal education.

When he was arrested for being in possession of cannabis resin, he was living in Oxford and using a considerable amount of methedrine. While he was on bail it was imposiblele to persuade him to accept any form of treatment, largely because of his previous experience in psychiatric hospitals. His probation officer was sure that he would receive some form of sentence, and made arrangements for him to be accepted at one particular borstal, if the need arose. However, when James appeared before the magistrate, the probation officer submitted that if he were to be institutionalised again there would be little hope of his ever being absorbed into the community.

The magistrate fined James £30 and told him to get a job so that he could pay the fine.

Two weeks later we heard that James was in Ashford Remand Centre for causing an affray. We wrote, telling him how to apply for legal aid but we received no reply. We heard nothing for two weeks until James walked into our office after being fined £5 at Bow Street Magistrates' Court. He then told us that "the affray" he had caused was at Treatment Centre when the doctor refused to prescribe him any methedrine. James made "a fuss" and the doctor called the police. We also discovered that the reason he had not applied for legal aid was because he could not write and was too ashamed to ask the Welfare Officer at Ashford for advice.

However, while in custody James had been withdrawn from methedrine. He was in a much better state of health and we were able to arrange for him to receive regular treatment with the same doctor at the Treatment Centre who had called the police.

We helped him get a job and find a room and he came into the office every week with the money to pay off his fines.

< Prev		Next >