A defendant charged with more than 260 Cannabis was charged with self-use only after being able to refute the assumption that the amount was evidence of trafficking, by confirming that he was consuming a large amount to relieve severe back pain from an accident.
The interesting decision was made at the Magistrate's Court in Rehovot, which rejected the state's request to convict the defendant of possession of drugs not for personal consumption based on the fact that 263.72 was caught in his home made of cannabis.
Despite the relatively large amount, the defendant was convicted solely of self-consumption. The judge Adanko Sabhat-Haimovitz Determined that the defendant made a centralized purchase in order not to get involved in small and frequent purchases.
The difference between a conviction in a non-self-possession and a most significant self-consumption is that the maximum sentence on the side of the offense of trafficking is 20, while the maximum penalty for self-use is 3 only.
The state, which seized the large amount of cannabis hidden in the coffin two years ago in the defendant's house, demanded that he be convicted of possession of drugs that are not for personal use, based on the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, which states that possession of more than 15 is not considered for personal consumption.
However, the Defendant sought to refute this assumption in the law (in legal jargon: "Hazka"). He insisted that he had acquired a concentrated amount so as not to risk small purchases, and that the drug was purchased for its own use only.
The defendant said that 2013 had an accident that caused him severe back problems, which resulted in a license for medical cannabis, but that the quantity that was issued to him today (after increasing) on 40 a month is not enough for him to smoke from morning to night to relieve his pain. The defendant noted that in the past he used opiates but did not help him like cannabis.
The defendant added that even after the police carried out a second search at his home, no signs of trade activity were found, such as distribution of lists, lists or money in cash. On the other hand, the state contended that since the defendant has a disability pension, he can not have had enough money to purchase the drugs.
However, the defendant noted that he and his wife received compensation of tens of thousands of shekels and that he was receiving financial help from his father. A version approved by the two.
Judge Sabhat-Haimovitz ruled that, in fact, in order to refute the presumption of the drug order, the defendant must prove "heavy" consumption and the ability to finance. To her liking, he bore the burden of proof.
The judge noted that the version of the defendant and his wife in the trial matched the version they gave the police during their first interrogation. Both testified that the defendant "smokes from morning to night" and that the amount approved by the Ministry of Health is not enough for him in view of the pain he suffers from on a daily basis.
These testimonies are supplemented by the fact that Cannabis received a license for his father, as well as the findings of his search at home and on his cell phone, which gave no indication of the trade.
As for the economic ability, the judge believed the supportive testimony of the defendant's father and his wife that during the period of purchase the defendant could have financed the amount of drugs seized.
Therefore, the judge She acquitted the defendant Of the possession of a dangerous drug not for personal consumption and convicted him of the offense of possession of a dangerous drug for personal consumption. The verdict will be given later.
State Attorney: Adv. Adi Saadia, counsel for the Defendant: Yossi Boker, criminal attorney. The writer, attorney Nira Ben David Does not represent the case.