A reformed drug addict who cultivated cannabis plants to supplement his anti-depressants was referred to the Drug Offenders Rehabilitation Board, shedding new light on a law recently termed as “unjust” by the Magistrates’ Court.
The decision concerned a 42-year-old Żebbuġ man who had landed a 20-month effective jail term and a €3,000 fine in 2017 after he was convicted of cultivating 21 cannabis seedlings, yielding 98.21 grams of the drug. He was also found guilty of cannabis resin possession.
During the course of appeal proceedings, the defence lawyer requested the court to judge the man in terms of the 2014 Drug Dependence (Treatment not Imprisonment) Act.
Madam Justice Edwina Grima took note of a social enquiry report in which a probation officer confirmed that the man had resorted to smoking some seven or eight joints a day to support his medication to combat depression.
However, eight years down the line, the man had transitioned into a “role model” for others afflicted by the same habit, as confirmed by a Caritas official who testified that the man had undergone a rehabilitation programme and was now looked upon by other addicts for his exemplary role.
Given such evidence, the court concluded that the man was almost fully rehabilitated and now led a “stable life”. In light of the 2014 law, the court listed five conditions that had to be satisfied for it to assume the functions of a Drugs Court, for the purpose of referring the case to the Drug Offenders Rehabilitation Board.
The offence had to be one that breached drugs laws and the amount of drugs involved was not to exceed the limit set out under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance – 300 grams in the case of cannabis. Moreover, the offence had to be attributable to the “proved drug dependency” of the accused and was not a wilful crime against the person or an armed offence punishable by imprisonment exceeding seven years.
Finally, it had to be objectively shown that the accused was “likely to be rehabilitated from drug dependence” or had “made substantial progress or effort to free himself of drug dependence”.
Madam Justice Grima observed that even though a provision of the 2014 law declared that a person found guilty of cultivating cannabis in excess of one plant was liable to a “mandatory term of imprisonment”, this did not exclude referral to the board “so long as all the conditions were satisfied”.
For this reason, the court upheld the man’s request and referred him to the Drug Rehabilitation Board which would, pending final judgment, report to the court at three-month intervals on the individual’s progress.
Lawyer Arthur Azzopardi served as defence counsel.
See also: Justice Ministry studying magistrate's criticism of 'draconian' drugs law