Rastafari and Cannabis: Framing a Criminal Law Exemption

Ecclesiastical Law Journal

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 324-344

  Gibson, Matthew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84975694152     PISSN: 0956618X     EISSN: 17518539     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0956618X10000384     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. For some analysis of the Rastafarian faith, its religious practices and suggested reasons for their recognition and protection see: S Poulter, Ethnicity, Law and Human Rights (Oxford, 1999), ch 9
2. D. O'Brien and V Carter, ‘Chant Down Babylon: freedom of religion and the Rastafarian challenge to majoritarianism’, (2002) 18 Journal of Law and Religion 219
3. and MO Mhango, ‘The Constitutional Protection of Minority Religious Rights in Malawi: the case of Rastafari students’, (2008) 52(2) Journal of African Law 218.
4. ACMD, Cannabis: Classification and Public Health (2008): , accessed 8 January 2010.
5. ACMD, Cannabis: Classification and Public Health, at para 13.4.1, p 33.
6. See also an open letter written to the Guardian, 25 November 2008, detailing the opposition of some scientists and politicians to the government's position: ‘Lords Must Stop Plan to Reclassify Cannabis’. Viewed at,www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/25/drugs-alcohol-cannabis., accessed 8 January 2010.
7. ‘Rastafarian Temple Drugs Trial Collapse’, Guardian, 8 April 2008:,www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ 2008/apr/08/law.drugsandalcohol., accessed 8 January 2010.
8. Farnhill v United Kingdom Appl No 35853/07. See the Cannabis Assembly:,www.cannabisassembly. org., accessed 8 January 2010.
9. ‘How To Stop The Drugs Wars’, The Economist, 5 March 2009: , accessed 8 January 2010.
10. See R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15 per Baroness Hale at paras 69–70
11. and Ladele v Islington London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 per Lord Neuberger MR at paras 72–73.
12. Mhango, The Constitutional Protection of Minority Religious Rights in Malawi’, p 220.
13. The Constitutional Protection of Minority Religious Rights in Malawi, p 222.
14. Poulter, Ethnicity, Law and Human Rights, p 356. Poulter also cites other Biblical evidence: Genesis 1:29, (‘The Beginning’) and 3:18, (‘The Fall of Man’); Exodus 10:12, (‘The Plague of Locusts’); Psalm 104:14; Proverbs 15:17; Revelation 22:2, (‘The River of Life’).
15. United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee (HRC) decision in MAB, WATand J-AYTv Canada (CCPR/C/50/D/570/1993). Applying Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it was said that ‘a belief consisting primarily or exclusively in the worship and distribution of a narcotic drug cannot conceivably be brought within the scope of Article 18 of the Convention (freedom of religion and conscience)’, at para 4.2.
16. M. Smith, R Augier and R Nettlefold, The Rastafari Movement in Kingston, Jamaica (Kingston, 1960), pp 17–18.
17. P.W. Edge, ‘The Legal Challenges of Paganism and Other Diffuse Faiths’, (1996) 1 Journal of Civil Liberties 216, pp 221–222.
18. See also ‘Successful legal exemptions - England and Wales’ below.
19. R v Taylor [2001] EWCA Crim 2263.
20. R v Andrew [2004] EWCA Crim 947.
21. This lack of justification also operated pre-HRA where Rastafarianism was accepted as a religion: R v Williams [1979] 1 Cr App R (S) 5
22. R v Daudi and Daniels “1982” 4 Cr App R (S) 306
23. and R v Dalloway [1983] 148 JPN 31.
24. For detailed discussion of these decisions, and Taylor and Andrews, see ‘Location of an exemption in domestic criminal law’ below.
25. For example, see the ‘African Caribbean Self-Help Foundation’ (registration number: 1047139), and the ‘Rastafarian Advisory Service’ (registration number: 295863), viewed on the Charity Register:,www.charitycommission.gov.uk. (accessed 8 January 2010).
26. (2002) (2) SA 794. For detailed discussion, see ‘Interference - Justification of interference’ below.
27. Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140, 1992, s 4(b)
28. Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101, 1965, s 22(a).
29. [1983] 2 AC 548.
30. Per Lord Fraser at p 562. This test was recently applied in JFS, see n 14 above, and R (Watkins-Singh) v The Governing Body of Aberdare Girls' High School [2008] EWHC (Admin) 1865.
31. Crown Suppliers (Property Services Agency) v Dawkins [1993] ICR 517 CA.
32. Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427.
33. O'Brien and Carter, ‘Chant Down Babylon: freedom of religion and the Rastafarian challenge to majoritarianism’, p 244.
34. R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] UKHL 15.
35. Per Lord Nicholls at para 23.
36. UKHL.
37. I. Leigh, ‘Recent Developments in Religious Liberty’, (2009) 11 Ecc LJ 65, pp 65–66.
38. See Taylor, n 25 above, per Rose LJ at para 14. The matter was also referred to briefly in Andrews in relation to cannabis use and centrality of belief. See n 27 above, per Laws LJ, para 21.
39. The validity of the test as a screening device was confirmed in United States v Ballard (1944) 322 US 78, at para 87.
40. O'Brien and Carter argue that the US courts have used this test to attack unpopular religions, p 237.
41. Robinson v Foti 527 F Supp 1111 (ED La 1981).
42. F Supp, at p 1113.
43. Reed v Faulkner (1988) 842 F2d 960.
44. O'Brien and Carter, p 236.
45. Mhango, p 232.
46. O'Brien and Carter, pp 235–236.
47. R. Ahdar and I Leigh, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State (Oxford, 2005), p 187.
48. Ahdar and Leigh, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State, p 188.
49. O'Brien and Carter, p 238.
50. Religious Freedom in the Liberal State, p 221.
51. R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15.
52. See Leigh, ‘Recent Developments in Religious Liberty’, p 67.
53. Edge, ‘The Legal Challenges of Paganism and Other Diffuse Faiths’, p 224.
54. ‘The Legal Challenges of Paganism and Other Diffuse Faiths’.
55. 110 SC 1595 (1990).
56. The minority in Smith found that interference had occurred and proceeded to assess whether this could be justified. For detailed discussion, see ‘Justification of interference’ below.
57. P. W. Edge, Religion and Law: an introduction (Aldershot, 2006), p 83.
58. See Jewish Liturgical Association Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France (2000) 9 BHRC 27.
59. See R (X) v The Headteacher of Y School [2007] EWHC 298 (Admin)
60. and R (Playfoot) v Governing Body of Millais School [2007] EWHC 1698.
61. Constitution of South Africa, s 15.
62. Constitution of South Africa, s 31.
63. Constitution of South Africa, at paras 111 and 134.
64. Montana Statutes (1959) 94–35–123: ‘[T]he terms of this act shall not apply to transporting, possession or using said peyote for religious sacramental purposes by any bona fide religious organization incorporated under the laws of the state of Montana’.
65. ‘The success of these exemptions suggests that the state's fear is without foundation’. HP Breslin, ‘Statute Prohibiting Use of Peyote Unconstitutional as Applied to Religious Users’ (1965) 17 3 Stanford Law Review 494, p 497.
66. People v Woody (1964) 40 Cal Rptr 69.
67. Gonzales, Attorney-General et al v O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal et al (2006) 546 US 418.
68. See also ‘Domestic Rastafari cannabis use and regulation - UK international obligations’.
69. US.
70. O'Brien and Carter, p 243.
71. Poulter, p 371.
72. S. Stavros, ‘Freedom of Religion and Claims for Exemption from Generally Applicable, Neutral Laws: lessons from across the pond?’ (1997) 6 EHRLR 607, at 620.
73. Stavros, ‘Freedom of Religion and Claims for Exemption from Generally Applicable, Neutral Laws: lessons from across the pond?’, p 626.
74. D. Harris, M O'Boyle, E Bates and C Buckley, Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (second edition, Oxford, 2009), p 441.
75. Poulter, p 369.
76. Poulter, p 370.
77. Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 139(5)(b).
78. S. Knights, Freedom of Religion, Minorities & the Law (Oxford, 2007), p 189.
79. See also the Sikh exemption from criminal laws requiring the use of protective headwear when using a motor cycle: Road Traffic Act 1988, s 16(2).
80. Poulter, p 356.
81. (1979) 1 Cr App R (S) 5.
82. Cr App R.
83. (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 306.
84. Cr App R.
85. Cr App R.
86. See also R v Dalloway (1983) 148 JPN 31. The defendant was charged under s5(3), the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 despite his defence that the cannabis was not for sale but for fellow Rastafarians to use.
87. This interpretation has also received support from other commentators. For example: Edge, Religion and Law: an introduction, p 84.
88. Religion and Law: an introduction.
89. Poulter, p 369.
90. Religion and Law: an introduction, at para 17.
91. Unreported, although see the media, for example, ‘Rasta Drug May Be a Human Right, Says Judge’, The Times, 19 December 2000.
92. I. Loveland, ‘Religious Drug Use as a Human Right?’ (2001) 151 New Law Journal 41, p 42.
93. (2006) 546 US 418.
94. Per Roberts CJ at pp 435–436.
95. New Law Journal.
96. J. Cooper and M McLeish, ‘Religious Freedom Under The Human Rights Act 1998’, (1999) 3(4) The Muslim Lawyer 4, p 8.
97. Harris et al, Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 441.