I move amendment No. 54 in the name of Deputy Byrne:
In page 13,
(a) in subsection (1), line 39, after "forge"
(b) in subsection (2), line 43, after "use" and
(c) in subsection (3), line 48, after "or" to insert
"an order form or equivalent from a medical practitioner, dentist, veterinary surgeon, chemist, druggist, hospital, health board, pharmaceutical production or distribution firm, or".
In regard to the ordinary prescriptions from the doctor to the patient to the pharmacist, the format would be prescribed by regulations. There are other forms for suppliers, manufacturers, importers and so on. It would be in a form to permit the use of these controlled drugs for experimental use. It would be the intention under section 5 of the Bill to provide for regulations. Therefore, I believe it is not necessary to have these words inserted here.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 13, subsection (3), line 47, before "in" to insert "knowingly".
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will take amendments Nos. 55 and 56 together. Subsection (3) of section 8 deals with forged or altered prescriptions. It states that:
A person shall not have in his possession either a forged prescription or a duly issued prescription which has been altered with intent to deceive.
That is much too sweeping in its extent. The net effect of my two amendments would be that subsection (3) would read that: "A person shall not have knowingly in his possession except for a lawful purpose a forged prescription or a duly issued prescription which has been altered with intent to deceive." It seems to me that that is necessary to cover the situation of a person who might accidentally have one of these things in his possession or might have it for a lawful purpose.
I appreciate what Deputy Haughey is getting at here. I think it was regarding one of the aspects of the use of drugs and cannabis in general that we discussed this before. It would be a valid defence that a person did not know and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had in his possession a forged prescription or that he was in possession of a controlled drug. Section 29 (2) (a) reads:
In any such proceedings in which it is proved that the defendant had in his possession a controlled drug, or a forged prescription or a duly issued prescription altered with intent to deceive, it shall be a defence to prove that—
(a) he did not know and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting—
(i) that what he had in his possession was a controlled drug or such a prescription, as may be appropriate, . . .
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 13, subsection (3), line 47, before "either" to insert "except for a lawful purpose".
Again I appreciate what Deputy Haughey is trying to do here but I refer him to section 29 (2) (c) which says:
. . . knowing or suspecting it to be such a drug or prescription, he took or retained possession of it for the purpose of—
(i) preventing another from committing or continuing to commit an offence in relation to the drug or document, as may be appropriate. . .
That would cover Deputy Haughey's amendment.
Not really. That is a very restricted purpose for which a person might have forged prescriptions lawfully in his possession, but surely there are others?
Would that be covered in the following subsection (2) (ii)?
Section 29, subsection (2) (c) (i) and (ii) makes it a defence for a person to have a forged prescription in his possession only if he had it for the purpose of preventing another from committing or continuing to commit an offence in relation to the document or for the purpose of delivering it into the custody of a person lawfully entitled to take custody of it. But surely there are other circumstances in which a person could lawfully come to have one of these forged documents in his possession. My approach is a comprehensive one. I am preventing it being an offence if he had it in his possession for a lawful purpose.
I would not be entirely averse to what Deputy Haughey says but could he give some other examples? I am thinking about a person who took it from somebody because he believed he was going to use the drug.
I could think of many circumstances in which a person would have one of these in his possession. It is the wrong approach to try to isolate particular instances where he could have it. Surely it would be better to say that if he had it for a lawful purpose, generally it is not an offence?
Could the Deputy explain in what instance would a person have a forged or altered prescription? Who would have that apart from a chemist?
This deals with a forged prescription or an altered prescription.
Suppose we had a situation where somebody had taken a prescription he knew had been forged from a person who had it?
That is covered in section 29, subsection (2) (c). It is safer to say in a general way, if the person had this for a lawful purpose, it is not an offence. I do not see what objection there can be to that. I can see that there is no need for "knowingly" in subsection (3) but it is necessary to put in the general proviso.
Could Deputy Haughey instance a situation where one could have it for a lawful purpose other than for the purposes set out in section 29?
I could visualise a chemist, in the course of his business, taking in one of these. If he discovered it was forged he could tell the customer he was not giving him these things and was retaining this to keep it out of harm's way.
Is that not preventing another from committing or continuing to commit an offence in relation to the drug or document?
Not necessarily. Why should we have to rely on that narrow, technical interpretation? Can we not provide that if he has it for a lawful purpose, there is no offence? It seems to be essentially good drafting.
Getting back to the suggestion covered in section 29 (2) which says: "In any such proceedings. . ."
That is for proceedings for an offence under the Bill. These are defences that can be put up.
If an adult had removed a forged prescription from a young person, would it be necessary for proceedings under the Act to be implemented at all, if Deputy Haughey's amendment was accepted on this subsection?
We are all at one about what should be done in respect of this. I shall have a look at it again with the parliamentary draftsman to see if it can be amended in order to comply with what Deputy Haughey had in mind.
