AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd is ‘grateful and relieved' that his conviction of cannabis possession has been overturned.
Rudd was convicted of cannabis possession on December 1 last year after appearing before community magistrate Robyn Paterson.
Phil Rudd outside the Tauranga District Court on the day he was sentenced for cannabis possession.
The conviction followed a police raid on his boat where 27 grams of cannabis was found.
At the time his lawyer Craig Tuck asked for Phil to be discharged without conviction because the amount of cannabis found indicated ‘low level' offending.
Craig also made reference to a similar case where a high profile individual was found in possession of a larger amount of cannabis and was discharged without conviction.
His appeal on Thursday was heard before Judge Alayne Wills in Tauranga District Court.
Craig says Phil was 'grateful and relieved” when the judge overturned the conviction.
'It was the correct decision. It was a fairly straight forward appeal. It took a couple of hours to resolve.
'The District Court Judge looked at the grounds for granting a discharge afresh and proceeded down that path so all has been resolved.”
15 comments
The 'justice' system made its money...
Posted on 01-04-2011 12:23 | By SpeakUp
...who cares about anything else?
Madness
Posted on 01-04-2011 12:56 | By bigted
Policing gone mad. Who "dobbed" Mr Rudd in? Yep - the police and justice system had to be seen doing the right thing. Let's not worry about major problems - as long as they look good. System zero . . . Mr Rudd ten!
powerfull precedent
Posted on 01-04-2011 13:03 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
A clear message from the judiciary to the police to not progress cannabis convictions on non supply of amounts less than 27 grams Hopefully for the poor and unknown as well as the rich and famous.....
Good news
Posted on 01-04-2011 13:52 | By Love Tauranga
Thank goodness all judges are not small minded! The original judgement should have been 'discharged without conviction' Rock on Phil - It is our priviledge to have you living in Tauranga.
NZ one law for all???
Posted on 01-04-2011 14:05 | By JSmithington
If the law is stupid, then change it. But don't apply the law to citizens differently based on their wealth and fame and high profile. If this was an ordinary $10 hr citizen I wonder what the result would have been?
Posted on 01-04-2011 15:11 | By Gringo
JSmithington did you read the article? The discharge was based on an earlier precedent from another (simialr) case. You obviously have no idea of how the legal system works. Perhaps yo should educate yourself before making comments.
ONE RULE FITS ALL
Posted on 01-04-2011 15:59 | By Hebegeebies
Mr Rudd either pleaded guilty or was found guilty and convicted and probably fined in December 2010 for possession of 27g cannabis.He had sought a discharge without conviction because a conviction would have jeopardized his musical career. Should have thought about that first even if it is a reasonably minor offence.Judge Wills has only recently been appointed to the District Court Bench and it is understood primarily holds a Family Court Warrant(?).Was the defendant ordered by the Court to pay the full prosecution(taxpayer) costs in all the proceedings ?
Reply to Gringo
Posted on 01-04-2011 16:30 | By JSmithington
My point is that the law should not be applied to rich and famous people any differently to the way its is applied to ordinary people. If there's a precedent for the rich to be treated specially I don't regard that as fair. Given the way Mr Rudd has been treated, anyone prosecuted for the same offence should be discharged without conviction. That would be equal treatment under the law. Did you read that an Auckland lawyer charged with drink driving gets to have her case judged by the Chief Judge? Do you regard that as fair?
justice finally
Posted on 01-04-2011 16:49 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
. How much money and time did the police waste raiding his boat for and all for a couple of joints, and the justice system procecuting him for what should be just an instant fine . And hebegebee wants to end this rock and roll hall of famer's career for such a trival thing .you give me the hebegebees. And hes just raised $50000 for CH CH .Shane
Chur Doy
Posted on 01-04-2011 17:55 | By Tony
Thanks for helping raise 50 k from Christchurch Phil
pathetic
Posted on 01-04-2011 22:10 | By Glen Clova
So if you are a pop artist its ok to be a junkie.What kind of a message is this useless judge sending to our children and grandchildren.Pity he wasn't caught in Thailand or Singapore and to say he had a clear record only means he hadn`t been caught before.
Good result
Posted on 01-04-2011 23:23 | By morepork
While the expressed reservations of J Smithington and Hebegeebees are duly noted, this case could have inflicted more severe punishment than was warranted if it hadn't been overturned. We all want the Law to be fair but most of us also recognise that this was a trivial offence. The Police were doing their job and have little option but to do it. However, Mr. Rudd was not pushing drugs to schoolkids (or anybody), he wasn't breaking into people's homes or stealing their property, and there was already a legal precedent for acquittal, as his brief pointed out. This is not a wicked, evil man or drug baron (quite the contrary) and it would be a pity to see his career wrecked for what is basically a misdemeanour. I don't personally take drugs, (however, I admit to some bias because I do enjoy AC/DC) but I understand some people can use them recreationally in small doses without being a danger to the rest of us. (I mean both "drugs" and "AC/DC"...:-)) Personally, Im very glad about this result. It is nice to see common sense winning occasionally.
POTHEAD PARADISE
Posted on 02-04-2011 10:59 | By Hebegeebies
Tony & Shane: Sorry I keep forgetting so just remind me once again was the supercar display that generated 50k for Christchurch before or after Mr Rudd's appeal was heard by the District Court.Let me repeat the message except in exceptional circumstances one set of rules for everyone.Special treatment for the rich and famous is both morally and legally wrong.If the Police charge is incorrect then by all means go to a defended hearing but if found guilty then you are in the wash with everyone else .
The rules are the same
Posted on 02-04-2011 19:15 | By Tony
For everyone , Your average person wouldnt have been seached and arrested, The man was arrested because of who he is not because of what he done
The Law is an Ass
Posted on 03-04-2011 07:55 | By bigted
and Asses are traditionally considered to be "a little stupid and very stubborn."
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.