After two days of legal arguments and a one-day trial, Jerry Ham was this afternoon convicted of possession of a small quantity of cannabis - on a majority 10-2 verdict.

Mr Justice Rivlin gave him a conditional discharge - citing "immensely powerful mitigating factors" including Mr Ham's "wonderful work on behalf of homeless people". Further, no costs were awarded against Mr Ham: Rivlin J concluded that the "legal argument was sincere and genuine ... sooner or later, this legal argument had to be heard".

Liberty acted for Mr Ham during legal arguments in the Crown Court on the basis that there is a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act - which enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.

After two days of legal arguments, Mr Justice Rivlin ruled that possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use is not protected by Article 8, the right to private and family life.

We are seeking leave to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeal. Mary Cunneen, associate director of Liberty and Jerry Ham's solicitor, says: "A couple of miles away, politicians in Westminster are openly debating legalisation of cannabis. Police in south London - up to the south end of London Bridge to where Jerry Ham was stopped - offer cannabis smokers informal warnings. But at the north end of the Bridge, possession of a minute quantity of cannabis for personal use in private is still considered a crime worth giving someone a criminal record for - with all the consequent damage to their reputation and job prospects.

"We remain convinced that invading someone's home and damaging their life to this degree over a victimless 'crime' of such microscopic proportions is an entirely disproportionate action by the state.

"This isn't what the public want our police forces to be concentrating their energies on. Our drug laws are arcane and outdated: as the Home Secretary himself has hinted, they need urgent review.

"In the meantime, juries should be allowed to decide whether someone should be convicted in cases such as this. And they should be allowed to hear all the arguments - including those on human rights - and the expert medical evidence".

Background
Jerry Ham was charged with possession of a small quantity of cannabis. We are acting for him to defend the case in the Crown Court on the basis there is a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act - which enshrines the right to respect for private and family life.

Jerry Ham, 33, is the well-respected former director and founder of a homelessness charity; he lives in east London. He was arrested in London in June last year.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that

1. everyone has the right to private and family life, home and correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

It is questionable whether intrusive searches, criminalisation and possible imprisonment are proportionate responses to what most medical experts concur is a relatively harmless pursuit.

The Government's recent rejection of the findings of the Dame Ruth Runciman's report for the Police Foundation suggests that the gap between Government and public views on the drugs debate is wider than ever. The Runciman report recommended the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug. The House of Lords science & technology committee has urged the Government recognise the therapeutic benefits of cannabis. Many other countries have in effect decriminalised possession of cannabis - including the Netherlands, parts of Australia, Belgium; Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Portugal are all considering similar steps or have made it an administrative (not criminal) offence.

Liberty believes that a Royal Commission is needed to review Britain's antiquated drug laws. Legalising the supply of drugs would instantly cut the crime committed to pay for their supply. At present, even possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use is a crime. This simply increases the burden on the police, distracting them from tackling serious crimes that pose a genuine threat to society.