OLD COUPLE SHOULD NOT LOSE HOME

It is hard to imagine a more unlikely pair of drug offenders than David
William Sidney Davies, 81, and Florence Gladys Davies, 77.

They look like a respectable elderly couple of pensioners who find joy in
being great-grandparents. Appearances, of course, should have no bearing
on how the law deals with them when they are sentenced in the District
Court today. Their offences, the circumstances surrounding them and the
public interest should determine the penalty.

They were found guilty on Friday of two counts each of possessing cannabis
with an intent to supply. In August 2002, police found 18.7kg of the drug
hiddden above a false ceiling in their home and 300g under their bed.

Their son, Tyssul Davies, pleaded guilty to the same drug charges in
October 2002 and was jailed. The jury decided the elderly couple must have
known the cannabis was in their home.

Judge Peter Williams said a suspended sentence was the only appropriate
penalty for the pair. But there is still a question about whether they
will be declared drug traffickers.

If they were, then under the Criminal Property Compensation Act they would
lose all their possessions except their clothes and family
portraits. Anyone with more than 3kg of cannabis can be branded a drug
trafficker.

The confiscation law was designed to stop drug barons from enjoying the
benefits of wealth gained through their crimes. It has won widespread
public support as a just measure which prevents some of WA's worst
criminals from flaunting their wealth in the faces of their victims and
law-abiding citizens.

However, the Davies hardly qualify as drug barons and there is no evicence
of massive wealth. And it is notable that the prosecution did not allege
they were involved in distributing the drug, which they held for their son.

Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock has been considering the
circumstances of their case before deciding whether he will apply to have
them declared drug traffickers. Mr Cock said that in every other case of
an offender being in possession of a trafficable amount of cannabis the
application has been made.

However he has dropped broad hints that there might be a different result
in this case, which he says is unique and needs further consideration. He
is right. If he finds that he has discretion under law not to make an
application, he should not do so.

The public interest would not be served by the seizure of this couple's
home and other possessions. If these people were rendered homeless and
indigent, they would be forced to rely on the taxpayer for housing and
other services. And there would be no benefit to anyone in that.