POT TRIAL A LESSON: LAWYER

Says Sentencing Rules Wouldn't Aid Battered Woman's Case

The case of a battered woman convicted in a marijuana grow-op trial
shows why judges shouldn't be handcuffed by mandatory minimum
sentences, a defence lawyer says.

"To me, the case is such a staggering argument for why there shouldn't
be mandatory minimums," defence lawyer Michael Crystal said of his
client Son Thi Le's case.

Community Service

Le was given a 12-month conditional sentence with essentially no house
arrest conditions. She was ordered to perform 120 hours of community
service, to not have weapons or drugs, and to not leave the province.

Justice Gereald Morin said yesterday that while he found Le had been
party to the possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking,
there was never any evidence that she was involved in the
cultivation.

Morin said Le had care and control of the premises as she was staying
in the rented bungalow, had a key and had helped her grow operator
boyfriend to select the location.

He also found that Le, an immigrant from Vietnam with a Grade 7
education, had hooked up with her boyfriend in the context of a flight
from an abusive marriage.

Crystal said that under a regime of mandatory minimum sentences
currently being contemplated by Parliament, Morin would not have been
able to consider the individual circumstances of his client.

Le ran afoul of the law in January 2005 when firefighters were called
to the home because neighbours saw smoke billowing out of the roof.
The smoke turned out to be steam from the grow-op, which was found in
the basement.

Le claimed to have never gone down to the basement and not to have
noticed the odour.