LAWYER TO TEST BAN ON HOME DRUG USE

A PERTH lawyer is to bring a test case against laws banning illicit
drug use in the home, claiming the legislation is undemocratic and
unconstitutional.

Colin McKerlie said yesterday that the Supreme Court appeal would
challenge the right of state parliament to curb the behaviour of
individuals unless they were acting in a way that affected others. Mr
McKerlie is preparing appeal documents after his client, Trevor Dunen,
was convicted yesterday of possession of cannabis and a smoking
implement, following a raid on his suburban home last year.

The conviction of Dunen, 37, would be used for a test case challenging
the Misuse of Drugs Act.

"As the law now stands, a man could amputate his foot, cook it and eat
it, and so long as he did it in the privacy of his own home, there
would be nothing that the Western Australian Government could do to
stop it," he told the Court of Petty Sessions in Perth.

"To suggest that the allegedly negative effects of a drug would
warrant the prohibition of its ingestion in such circumstances is a
nonsense."

Outside the court, Mr McKerlie criticised the state Labor Party, which
withdrew decriminalisation of simple drug possession from its platform
late last year.

"Despite the fact that the Government takes out full-page
advertisements telling us that one in three people use cannabis at
some time in their life, no political party will take on the job of
representing the rights of such a very large minority," he said.

Mr McKerlie conceded that the Supreme Court might refuse the argument,
flagging a challenge to the High Court.

"I believe the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to determine whether
the acts of state parliament are constitutional or not, but the
justices may not agree with me," he said.

"We'll take it to the High Court if we have to."

An attempt to challenge the state's cannabis laws on the grounds they
were unconstitutional failed in 1994.

The appeal argued that the laws did not fall into the categorisation
of a power to legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of
the state.

Supreme Court justice Michael Murray refused the appeal on the grounds
that he disagreed with its likelihood to promote peace, order and good
government.