Drug Abuse

13 Law Enforcement

Public Pressures
The social hostility described in the last chapter is, of course, not vindictive, but a genuine fear that drugs are a danger to the wellbeing of the community. There is some foundation for this, but intermixed with these fears is the ignorant idea that one drug is much like another, and misinformation about the extent and effects of drug use.

This public disquiet influences the police and the judiciary who are expected to reflect the changing views of the community. The public and the press demand that the law enforcement authorities do something' about the so-called drug problem, which, in fact, comprises many different problems. This places great pressure on the police to take action, which in turn affects the conduct of individual policemen and encourages over-zealous actions which, in some instances, may be unjust or even illegal. At the same time the severity of penalties for cannabis offences and the widespread belief in the escalation theory cause misunderstanding in the minds of the judiciary.

Although the number of drug offences is minute compared to the total number of all offences, the proportion of cannabis offences to other drugs is significant. There were 6,095 convictions under the (1965) Dangerous Drugs Act in 1969; of these, 4,683 (77 per cent) were cannabis offences. In the same year there were 7,101 convictions for possessing all types of illegal drugs, of which 4,094 (57 per cent) were for possessing cannabis. So more people are convicted for taking cannabis than for any other drug.

In 1967 a more detailed analysis was made of the cannabis offences. It was found that over two thirds of all cannabis offenders did not have a record of non-drug offences. Nine out of ten of all cannabis offences were for possessing less than 30 grams. About a quarter of all cannabis offenders were sent to prison and 17 per cent of first offenders were imprisoned. Even those convicted of possessing small amounts of cannabis run the risk of being dealt with quite severely. The figures given in the fourth section of chapter 4 revealed that three in every twenty persons convicted of possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis were imprisoned.

These are very striking figures. They make it clear that young people without criminal records are being severely punished for possessing very small amounts of cannabis. It makes nonsense of the occasional police statement that they are only interested in catching the dealers. It shows that magistrates have failed to appreciate the difference between cannabis and other drugs. This analysis was made three years ago and there are signs that there ° has been some improvement since then, but the reception given to ' the Wootton report does not suggest that chief constables or magistrates will find it easy to alter their previous attitudes to cannabis.

Police Discretion

Most people do not realize that the police have very wide powers of discretion. Indeed they have to be given this discretion because it is impossible to enforce all the laws all the time and so small police forces with limited budgets have to select and choose sensibly. The result is that chief constables have become extremely powerful. There are now so many laws that if only a fraction of them were fully enforced, the courts of this country would be absolutely overwhelmed. In many instances it is neither Parliament, nor the Government, but rather an individual chief constable who decides what the law of the land should be in his borough.

The 1963 Gaming Act is an example of a law that the police decided not to enforce. In 1968 the Minister of Transport was bluntly told by the chief constables' traffic committee that roadside noise meters were unworkable' and they did not intend to use them. Variations in the attitudes of local chief constables make for , very big differences in the way the law is administered. In York 756 motorists were cautioned for speeding in 1967, Z588 in 1966. In Middlesbrough, a town half as big again, one was cautioned in 1967, two in 1966. In Torbay a new police superintendent has decided that there will be no more 'public dancing in clubs and hotels on Sundays'. In other places like Bournemouth and Brighton it is allowed because the police exercise their discretion in a different way. In Manchester there was one prosecution for importuning in 1955, none in 1956 and 1957, two in 1958. A new chief constable was appointed at the end of that year and the number of prosecutions rose to 30 in 1959, to 105 in 1960, to 135 in 1961 and to 216 in 1962.

Although each chief constable has his own bias and prejudices like everyone else, the system works quite well because these powers of discretion usually reflect the changing attitudes of the public. - But it is important to realize how great these powers are, and to recognize the influences that may lead to an abuse of these powers.
The alarm about drugs began a few years ago at about the same time as the good relations between public and police started to decline. Furthermore the reputation of the police was waning as the number of crimes soared and the conviction rate slumped. The public demanded that the authorities get tough with the drug takers and the police saw this as an excellent opportunity to regain some of their lost prestige. They also thought that it would be relatively easy to catch a real drug addict because he has to have regular supplies from an illegal source, and he would get careless and inefficient as he becomes more dependent on the drug. It was decided, therefore, to devote large expenditures of police time and money on a campaign against drug offenders and this was expected to produce a quick and easy boost to the conviction rates—one of the yardsticks by which the performance of chief constables - is judged.

The individual policeman soon becomes aware of the particular interest of his chief and probably shares the public alarm about , drugs. He believes, as many do, that the right way to deal with the problem is to stamp it out with all the powers at his command and therefore he is open to the temptation to bend the rules to secure the conviction of an individual whom he honestly suspects of having committed a drug offence.

The result is that there have been many examples of what the police euphemistically refer to as stretching a point This has led to a large number of allegations of police malpractices. Drug offences are consensual crimes and there is rarely a victim or an aggrieved party. Consequently it is more difficult for the police to obtain evidence, so sometimes they have to resort to using in; formers or decoys. Persons arrested for drug offences are some,' times pressurized into helping to trap other users. They are persuaded to ring up a friend to arrange a bogus sale, or to supply cannabis to a suspect who is then promptly arrested for possession. If they do not agree to aid the police in this way, they may be told : that bail will be opposed or that extra charges will be brought against them.

On other occasions the evidence may be improperly obtained, perhaps by force, duress, false promises or failure to caution the defendant before he makes a statement. The police may also bar--gain with the accused and urge him to plead guilty in return for a quick trial or a light sentence — suggestions which might influence At fast offender, although an experienced criminal would know that the police do not have the power to make these arrangements.

Planting

The most serious allegation is that policemen plant drugs while carrying out a search. It is extremely difficult to find out the truth behind these allegations. Defending lawyers are usually reluctant to allege planting by the police. Some magistrates assume that an accusation against the police is the last resort of a criminal who cannot think of any other excuse.

Coon and Harris (1969), who probably have more experience of this subject than anyone else, report that the number of drug offenders who claim to have been planted is smaller than they expected, but there were a few cases where all the circumstances indicated that the police had used this method to obtain a conviction against a suspect. They felt that persons with a record of previous drug offences were particularly liable to the risk of planting.

One example, cited by the National Council for CivilLiberties, concerned public premises which were being used by a group of young people for rehearsals. The group had been subjected to ' frequent but unsuccessful searches on previous occasions. The premises had been thoroughly cleaned by the owner, to whom no suspicion of drugs possession could be attached, only a short time before the arrival of the police. Quantities of cannabis were found in other parts of the premises and the group was charged. They elected to go for trial by jury and the magistrate upheld a submission by the defence lawyers that there was no case to answer on the grounds that there was no proof that the drugs belonged to them. So the issue of how the drugs got there did not arise as the case did not go to trial.

A very well-known pop star told me that when his house was raided by the police, they searched the whole house, at first without success. But after a second visit to a room upstairs, a policeman claimed to have found a wrapped brick of hash. The house owner had never seen it before. Later still his own small supply of cannabis was produced and subsequently the first find was never mentioned when he was charged, nor when the case came to court. His theory is that the press were already aware of the raid and it would have been embarrassing for the police if they had not managed to find an illegal drug on the premises; but after getting what they were looking for, they decided not to say anything about the drug they had planted.

Of course it is impossible to substantiate any of these allegations. Even in the rare cases when a verdict of not guilty has been returned after police planting has been put forward as the defence, it is still not possible to assume that this is proof that the police were to blame. It is quite difficult for the court to censure the police even if it is believed that the police had planted the drug. When the trial is before a jury the court cannot say anything before the verdict is given because it is not known whether the defence is valid or not; after the verdict is given the court does not know why the defendant was found not guilty, and there is no further opportunity to comment. The court cannot comment on the action of the police unless that is the issue to be tried.

My own view is that as it is an easy allegation to make, all accusations of planting should be treated with caution, and probably most should be discounted. But there are a few cases where the evidence does lead one to suspect planting and this should be the 'cause of considerable disquiet. Accusations of planting are rarely believed and very difficult to prove. This is all the more reason why : we should take these allegations very seriously, because the individual policeman must know that if he does plant a drug on an innocent person his offence is not likely to be detected. His own ' conscience and his sense of justice are the only deterrents.

I have met honest policemen who will admit that planting does occur on rare occasions, saying that even in the police force there are bound to be some bad characters. But this is not a satisfactory explanation. If you are content to allow a few innocent people to be planted in the interests of catching drug addicts and traffickers, then you should be reminded that the next innocent person to be ' planted may be you.

Police Malpractices

The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1967, section 6 (1), gave the police powers to search anyone they have 'reasonable grounds' for suspecting of carrying drugs. The police seem to have interpreted this law to mean that they have a right to make random searches. Long hair, unconventional dress, youthful appearance, and being out on the streets after midnight are all considered by the police to be reasonable grounds. Any young person can be stopped and searched for no other reason than that they are perceived as part of a suspect generation. Their pockets will be gone through and, if the police are not convinced of their innocence, they will be taken to the police station for a more thorough search. There have been large-scale raids on teenage clubs in which everyone on the premises has been searched.

Police raids on clubs where there are a hundred or mori3 present seem to be particularly ineffective. It is quite easy for those who do have drugs in their possession to get rid of them. Most people would throw them on the floor, but there is also the danger that they might slip them into someone else's pocket while waiting to be searched in an unsupervised group, with the result that the wrong person is charged with being in possession.

The Deedes committee was set up to inquire into these allegations of excessive zeal by the police, but the phrase 'reasonable grounds' cannot be adequately defined and only a limitation on the power to stop and search without a warrant would provide the necessary safeguards to our civil liberties. The only `reasonable' ground for searching a person is specific information which leads the policeman to suspect that drugs are being used or carried.

If a substance is found which the officer suspects is an illegal drug, it is sent away to a police forensic laboratory to be analysed. This may take up to three weeks. In some cases the person is, arrested and charged even before the substance has been identified by an analyst. If for some reason he is not granted bail, he may be kept in custody until his case is heard. If it turns out to be a legal substance, he will be brought before the court and freed. A better system is to put the defendant on 'police' bail. This means he is required to report to the police station on a particular day. If the analysis shows the substance is illegal, he will be charged with the appropriate offence when he returns to the station. If he fails to appear, a warrant can be issued for his arrest. If the substance is not illegal, no time will have been spent unnecessarily in court.

Sometimes charges are based on trace elements on such articles as pipes and ashtrays. Such very small amounts of cannabis are unconvincing evidence of possession because it is impossible to assess precisely when the drug was used.

There have been many complaints that when a person is taken to the police station on a drugs charge, he is refused the right to make a telephone call to his family, a friend or solicitor. In other cases it has been suggested that the police make the call for the defendant and tell him that the line was engaged or there was no answer; later checks have shown that the persons called were available at the time the police said they telephoned. In the Release
report (1969) it is concluded that 'this obstruction is deliberate, in order to prevent arrangements being made for bail and defence. A young person in custody who has been:denied access to a telehone is much more easily subdued and induced to plead guilty.'

The right to make at least one call should be universally observed at police stations and persistent attempts should be made to "'get through even if a line is temporarily engaged or a call is not answered immediately. It must be assumed that the probability is that an arrested person would want to contact a solicitor or a friend. If for some reason this is not the case, the accused should sign a statement to say that he does not want to contact anyone outside the police station.

There appear to be no restrictions on the materials and objects :which the police may seize during the search of private premises. Such items as address books are often retained on the grounds that they are needed as exhibits. People have been contacted and searched where there have been no grounds for suspicion other than that their names and addresses have been found in the home of a person arrested on a drugs charge.

The police evidence on the amount of cannabis seized is often misleading. They place a monetary value on the amount seized and this is often exaggerated because it is based on the market 'if:due of the smallest unit. Last February the press reported that Abree sacks of cannabis resin were found in the funnel of a ship at Tilbury docks. All the newspapers gave the value of the cannabis as £300,000 and this was the figure given later in court. In fact the -three sacks contained 336 pounds of resin which would fetch jetween £15,000 and £20,000 if sold as one lot; if broken down into one ounce packages it might sell at £9 an ounce, making a mead/num value of £50,000. The police should state the amount , seized in grams so as to leave no room for misunderstanding.

Sometimes the police claim to have found less cannabis than they have seized and taken away. If they state in court that the accused had 15 grams when in fact they found 25 grams, the defendant is not likely to get up and say he had more. Perhaps the police need a supply of cannabis in order to train their dogs, but this method of obtaining an unauthorized supply does increase the possibilities of planting. Seized drugs are supposed to be destroyed under the supervision of a senior police officer and special care should be taken to make sure that all that is seized is destroyed.

Police Attitude to Allegations

The usual police reply to these allegations is that they are not substantiated. This is true. It is almost impossible to prove allegations of police malpractices and this is exactly why special safeguards are required to protect the rights of the citizen.

Whenever allegations are made against the police, they are denied. There exists a powerful fellowship in the force which persuades a policeman to stick up for all other policemen; this has many advantages, but it often looks to the outsider like bland overconfidence in the unshakeable belief that nothing ever goes wrong in the police force.

The official remedy for dealing with abuses of police authority • is the complaint procedure under section 49 of the 1964 Act. If someone charges the police with misbehaviour, he is usually asked at the station if his complaint is formal or informal. If it is the latter, no more will be heard about it and he must assume appropriate disciplinary measures have been taken. If it is to be an official complaint, the matter is investigated by a senior police officer. This means that the police act as both judge and jury when they themselves are accused. Where criminal offences are alleged, the case will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but he is unlikely to act unless the evidence against the police officers is substantial. When other policemen are the only witnesses, the likelihood of obtaining such evidence is remote.

A defendant is usually advised not to make complaints about the police because this may prejudice his case in the eyes of a magistrate. If the result of the case is a finding of guilty, although the accused may still maintain his innocence and may still complain of police malpractices, normally most people regard it as rather futile to lodge an official complaint after an unfavourable verdict from a magistrate or jury. Having exhausted any appeal structure through the courts, they feel they are not likely to achieve anything by trying to raise the same issue in another forum.

If found not guilty the defendant may wish to forget about the matter as quickly as possible or may be deterred from taking further action by the difficulties of taking civil or criminal proceedings against the officers concerned. An independent complaints procedure would remove some of the difficulties and create more confidence that complaints are dealt with adequately.

When an accusation is made against the police, the individual case must be investigated. But more important than this, senior officers should ask, not only did it happen, but could it happen. If there is the possibility of police malpractice, senior officers should cooperate with others in an attempt to devise a system of safeguards so that it cannot happen and the police cannot be subjected to these accusations. Of course it is not always possible to devise such safeguards, and then we are forced to strike a balance between the efficiency of the police and the rights of the citizen.

The drug user is also a citizen. As the law stands he is a criminal, but he still has certain rights. It is not a question of police corruption, brutality or other gross miscarriage of justice. It is a quieter, more insidious kind of injustice; bending the law a little bit in one case, forgetting a regulation in a second, being too busy to attend to someone's legitimate request in a third.

The police must know, but seem to have forgotten, that they simply cannot carry out their tasks without public cooperation and before long they are going to need the goodwill of these citizens of tomorrow. Young people between fifteen and twenty-five are very impressionable and the growing alienation between this on-coming generation and the police is ominous.

Judges and Magistrates

It is important that laws enacted by Parliament be enforced, but it is of equal importance that the safeguards woven into such laws be respected. When these safeguards are ignored in a significant number of cases, it is up to the judiciary to ensure strict compliance with the restrictions on police powers and the rights of the citizen.

In practice it is quite difficult for the judiciary to carry out this function. For example, if telephone contact is refused or obstructed while the accused is in the police station and this matter is reported to the magistrate, he could draw it to the attention of the chief officer concerned. In fact the court rarely comments on the action of the police unless this is the matter being tried. It is perfectly possible for a person to be found guilty, and be guilty, even though the police behaviour was incorrect. When a person is found not guilty, the court is unlikely to say that this is because the police acted improperly.

When the allegations are disputed, the magistrates usually believe the police. This is understandable. They work with the police every day; in the normal course of events the arresting officer is more likely to tell the truth than the defendant; criticism from a magistrate lowers morale in the police force which is already over worked and undermanned. Nevertheless it should not be forgotten' that the policeman is well aware that his evidence will nearly always be believed and this must tempt some officers to exaggerate and fabricate.

It is to be expected that the police are anxious to make the charge stick once they have taken a man in. But magistrates should make sure that this attitude is not taken too far, especially when it is used to defend rough justice such as - Well, maybe he didn't have a drug on him this time, but we know he smokes pot.'

Magistrates need to show more care before issuing search warrants. The Home Secretary has recently issued a warning to chief; officers of police of the dangers of applying for search warrants on the basis of anonymous information. David Napley of the Law ' Society wrote in a letter to The Times :1

For the most part warrants — both for arrest and search — appear, throughout the country, to be issued in a perfunctory fashion. So long as an officer swears to the truth of the written and sparse information on which his application for a warrant is based, it often appears to be , granted without inquiry and as a matter of course. Too many magistrates, although by no means all, pay insufficient regard to the fact that Parliament both intended and decreed that they — and not the police —- need to be satisfied that reasonable grounds of suspicion exist to justify interference with the liberty or privacy of the public.

Magistrates need to inquire more closely into the evidence on . which applications are based.

The police should report back to the magistrate who granted the warrant after its execution. It is possible that magistrates may not be in a very good position to assess the information put before them and if they are always given a report on the results of the search, they will acquire more knowledge and expertise. For ex, ample, the reports might show that a particular individual had been providing inaccurate information over a period and this would make a magistrate more suspicious when granting a warrant on information from this source in the future. An additional advantage in establishing efficient recording and reporting-back procedures is that the resulting statistics would provide a broad national picture of the situation, which is not available at present.

It is not unknown for police officers to arrive at premises without a warrant and wrongly to effect and sometimes virtually to force an entry, particularly when the drug suspect is young and unaware of his rights. If defending lawyers bring this to the notice of the courts, it should be the subject of severe criticism; for it is possible that the police will be tempted to plant drugs if they do not find any, so as to justify their illegal entry.

Bail

As all cases involving drugs have to wait until the substance has been analysed and this may take as long as three weeks, the question of bail assumes greater importance than in many other cases. The problem is exacerbated because the police are empowered to grant bail to persons charged with the possession of drugs.

Sometimes the defendants are urged to plead guilty in return for bail being granted. The accused is told that if he makes a statement admitting his guilt, then he will be released that evening; but if he is not going to be helpful, then he will have to be brought before the magistrates in the morning and he will have to spend the night in custody. In effect the police are saying, if you are guilty you can go, but if you are innocent you must stay overnight in the police cell. It is quite illogical but this is what happens.

If the defendant refuses this offer, the application to the magistrate for bail may be opposed by the police. In theory substantial reasons must be given by the police when they object to bail, but all available statistics show that their advice is taken in the vast majority of cases. A magistrate may be satisfied by the vague statement 'we have not completed our inquiries' and comply with police objections to bail.

Even if the magistrate overrules the police and does grant bail, the prisoner cannot be released until he has a suitable surety. The police can object to anyone who presents himself in this capacity. Without the cooperation of the police it is difficult for a person to get bail, even after the magistrate has granted it, because the only contact with the outside world for someone in custody is through the police.

Sometimes friends and relatives refuse to stand surety because they are under the mistaken impression that money has to be produced immediately: 'The mother of a seventeen-year-old girl who had been granted bail but sent to Holloway to await the arrival of her surety, was asked if she could stand £50 bail for her daughter. She refused thinking she had to be able to find the £50 in cash which she did not have' (Coon and Harris, 1969).
Persons arrested for possessing drugs are often young, living with friends away from their parents in furnished accommodation where they may have been for only a short time, and may be regarded by the police as being of no fixed abode. Others mislead the police into believing they have no fixed address in order to protect their friends and do not realize this decreases their chances of getting bail.

Once a person has appeared in court and has been remanded in custody, it is extremely difficult for the accused to arrange bail. It is possible to write a letter from the remand centre or prison, but many young people do not understand the procedure and do not know the address of anyone who can help. The police can undertake to contact sureties but their attempts can hardly be described as enthusiastic.

The result is that a considerable number of persons arrested for drug offences spend a period, possibly of weeks, in custody, irrespective of whether they are subsequently acquitted or convicted and not sent to prison. If the defendant elects to go for trial by jury or is taken before a higher court because of the seriousness of his case, his remand in custody is likely to be a matter of months. Even a short time in custody can lead to considerable disruption including loss of employment, and may be the direct cause of a person forsaking normal society in favour of a drug-orientated group.

Bail should not be opposed by the police, and should be granted in all but the most exceptional cases. If bail is granted and sureties are not arranged within two or three hours, the magistrate concerned should be informed. The only reasonable objection to bail is that the accused is likely to abscond. In situations where an individual is arrested for possession of small amounts of cannabis, he should be allowed bail on his own recognizance. When it is absolutely necessary to keep a person in custody, a special priority should be arranged so that the substance is analysed immediately and the case brought before the court without further delay.

The Deedes Report

A few members of the Deedes sub-committee were worried about the situation brought to light by the evidence summarized quite fairly in the first 96 paragraphs of the report. But the majority felt that the drugs problem was so serious that the police should be given maximum powers and should not be restricted in any way. Although there might be isolated examples of malpractices in the police and injustice in the courts, the majority believed that the situation was generally so satisfactory that things could be left as they were.

Consequently the recommendations of the majority were largely negative. The only positive proposals were:

1. Better records should be kept on police searches carried out with or without a warrant.
2. The police must accept that modes of dress or hair style do not by themselves constitute reasonable grounds to stop and search a suspected drugs offender.
3. It is better to defer making a charge until the seized substance has been analysed. When a suspected drugs offender is held in custody, the analysis should be made available within forty-eight hours.
4. The Home Office should think about providing a suspect with a leaflet explaining his legal rights.

The minority were in favour of repealing the police powers to stop and search altogether. They felt that the police should be instructed to grant bail to all cannabis offenders solely on their own recognizance. They believed that all persons accused of possessing illegal drugs should have the right to contact a solicitor or friend. They also wished to impose some restrictions on the authority of the police to seize documents belonging to suspected drug offenders.

Inevitably it was a very divided report which contained views which were irreconcilable. It may have some effect on the final shape of the new drugs legislation and it is a valuable document because it has brought several problems to the notice of the general public. But there are still many cases where the rights of suspected drugs offenders are in jeopardy.

Justice and Drugs Offenders

When a young person is arrested for a drugs offence, it is unlikely that he will get a fair hearing unless he is represented by a lawyer. Everyone is entitled to apply for legal aid but the magistrate's power to grant it is quite arbitrary; if a plea of guilty is anticipated, it is more likely to be refused (Paterson, 1970). But even in those cases it is better to have someone to speak on behalf of the defendant who pleads guilty; a lawyer can make a plea of mitigation or put an end to obstructive police behaviour.

The police often tell the accused that he does not need a solicitor. Undefended cases mean less work for the police; their evidence is uncontested and a conviction is more likely. The presence of a defending lawyer forces the police to be more accurate and more discriminating in the charges they press. Lawyers can make arrangements with the police and are often successful in getting charges dropped before cases come to court.

Sometimes the defendant does not know a solicitor and then the clerk of the court chooses one for him if he is granted legal aid. This is not always a good arrangement. The chosen solicitor may be well known by the court and the police, and this may not be in the best interests of the defendant.

The Release report notes the importance of being middle class if you are going to be arrested for a drugs offence. Young people from working-class backgrounds are at a definite disadvantage; they are less articulate, less likely to be legally represented, less prepared to ignore the advice of the police, and are more likely to get a prison sentence. People of higher education can speak for themselves, can gain access to a lawyer, and are more likely to get probation or a conditional discharge.

If the possession of cannabis is a crime which is thought to be serious enough to bear the penalty of a prison sentence on a first offence, a solicitor should be automatically available to a defendant. People ought not to be sent to prison without being legally advised.

Judges and magistrates share the same attitudes to drugs as the general public. This is not a cause for concern, but it does mean that a certain amount of ignorance and prejudice will be found. Youth has always been in revolt and their social defiance is often expressed as particular styles of dress, language, music, political protest, minor forms of delinquency or a relaxed attitude to sexual behaviour. All these forms of youthful rebellion have disturbed and sometimes annoyed adults in one way or another, though most have managed to tolerate them even if they did not understand them. But drug taking is an altogether different matter which older people have found far more deeply bewildering and disturbing. This is partly explained by the newness and puzzling nature of the phenomenon. The ironic result is that in a court of law the accused is usually better informed about drugs than the magistrate.

This means that the magistracy and the judiciary must take extra care in order to preserve the defendant's safeguards and ensure justice. Even if it can be shown during the court hearing that malpractices have occurred before the person was charged with the drugs offence, the court usually takes the view that, whatever the irregularities, the case now being before the court, the trial should proceed, leaving the accused to pursue such civil remedies as may be available to him. If the defendant is convicted, these civil remedies are in fact illusory, as it would be almost impossible to bring a successful civil action no matter how serious the malpractices may have been. In the United States evidence improperly obtained would be excluded, but here the law tends to regard the end as justifying the means.

This is in sharp contrast to the decisions of judges and magistrates when dealing with the breathalyzer and the Road Safety Act 1967. Until a very recent decision in the courts, it had become clear that if the safeguards were not strictly observed, the arrest was illegal and a conviction could not be sustained. Thus it appears to young people that police behaviour must be absolutely circumspect when dealing with alcohol, the drug of the older generation, but the law can be bent when dealing with cannabis, the drug of the younger generation.

1. 4 March 1968.

< Prev		Next >