PEOPLE who use cannabis to relieve chronic pain should not be deemed to be breaking the law, three appeal judges were told yesterday.
The court is being asked to rule on the issue of "necessity" in the case North Wales man Jeffrey Ditchfield, who was acquitted of possessing the drug with intent to supply it to victims of serious and painful medical conditions.
The case is seen as a test of the law's attitude to cannabis in such cases in the light of it being downgraded to a Class C drug.
Conduct that would otherwise be unlawful is "excused or justified by the need to avoid a greater evil", said Edward Fitzgerald QC.
Cannabis was more effective than conventional forms of pain relief and did not have the potentially serious and life-threatening side effects of alternative treatments, he told the Court of Appeal in London.
The defence of "necessity" should be available to anyone who used cannabis to remove or alleviate the greater evil of chronic pain, he said.
The three judges are being asked to rule that victims of severe and chronic pain who use cannabis are not breaking the law.
The issue of "necessity" in Mr Ditchfield's case is being decided as a point of law.
Five other people are challenging their convictions: Barry Quayle, 38, from Market Rasen, Lincolnshire; Reay Wales, 53, of Ipswich; Graham Kenny, 25, from Shipley, West Yorkshire, and Anthony Taylor, 54, and May Po Lee, 28, both from London.
All were given either a fine, community service or suspended jail sentence.
Lord Justice Mance, Mr Justice Newman and Mr Justice Fulford heard that Mr Quayle had both legs amputated below the knee and suffered pain from damaged tissue and "phantom limb" sensation..
Mr Wales had serious bone and pancreas conditions.
Both men found that prescription drugs were ineffective and caused serious side effects with the risk of addiction.
Opposing the appeals, Crown counsel Mukul Chawla QC said: "The defence of necessity exists as a realistic and humane concession to human frailty, excusing a breach of the law in extreme circumstances.
"That defence should not, and does not, exist to provide a licence to breach the law on a continuous basis."
He told the judges: "The court has to examine the actions of the appellants, not in isolation, but in the context of wider issues.
"Those issues include the not unimportant fact that, notwithstanding wide public debate, the prohibition on cannabis remains the will of Parliament democratically elected by the public at large."
