A man refused the right to have his medical cannabis prior to an arrest will receive a $10,000 payout from Queensland Police.
Alan Harding, who lives on the Gold Coast, successfully filed an indirect discrimination case against the police service in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
He claimed officers had prevented him from taking prescribed medical marijuana for hours, both in his home and while in custody.
On November 18, 2022, police visited Mr Harding’s home at about 7pm while investigating him over an alleged criminal offence, which was not detailed in the tribunal’s findings.
The tribunal heard that two officers, a man and a woman, stopped him from taking medical cannabis, which he usually smoked throughout the day in small increments.
Mr Harding had been prescribed the legal substance, consumed using a water pipe, for impairments including ADHD, PTSD, a slipped disc in his back, and ‘oppositional defiance disorder’, the tribunal was told.
But despite Mr Harding explaining several times, he was denied the medicine at his home.
This included one incident heard by the tribunal when he walked into an area within his home and started to light up a water pipe which had the medicinal cannabis.
A Gold Coast man will receive a $10,000 payout from Queensland Police after officers seized his medical cannabis, despite him having a prescription and repeating the fact
‘The police followed in behind him. The female officer immediately told him that he could not “do that” and went to take it from him and did so, thus preventing him from taking the medication,’ the tribunal noted.
Mr Harding was detained and taken to Southport police station. During the journey, he repeated that he had a prescription for medical marijuana.
Just before 8pm, Mr Harding was interviewed at the station about the alleged offence and again told them about his medical conditions, the tribunal heard.
He was held in the watch-house until about 0:30am, meaning he was forced to go without ‘necessary’ medicine for five and a half hours before being released on bail.
The tribunal heard that Mr Harding ‘would have taken his medication perhaps three or four times over (that period) to give him better clarity of thought, reduce his anxiety and his back and shoulder pain’ as well as helping his temperature regulation.
In his findings, which were published on October 28 this year, tribunal member Peter Roney KC ruled in favour of Mr Harding for his claim of indirect discrimination.
‘I find that the two police officers did not permit him to take his medication when he was at his house before he was transported to the police station and that this constituted indirect discrimination,’ he said.
‘I also find that the applicant was prevented from taking his medication whilst in police presence or custody for a period of approximately five and a half hours and that this also constituted indirect discrimination.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal said the man would have suffered considerable anxiety, distress, some pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the ordeal
‘A person with his disabilities would have suffered considerable anxiety and distress and some pain and discomfort and inconvenience that night,’ Mr Roney noted.
‘I find that in fact he could not ‘cope’ in the relevant sense because in consequence he suffered considerable anxiety, distress, some pain, discomfort and inconvenience.’
As a result, he ordered Queensland Police Service to pay Mr Harding $10,000, describing it as a ‘reasonable award’ after the suffering caused over the five hours.
During the tribunal, Mr Harding also claimed he had been ‘mocked’ by officers when released on bail.
He alleged one person said: ‘Off ya go mate, go and get your bong on bro!’,
However, Mr Roney said it was unclear if this had happened, but added it would not have been enough to warrant discrimination in a situation where it had occurred.
A Queensland Police Service spokesperson told the Daily Mail it has statutory obligations under the Information Privacy Act 2009, and it would be inappropriate to provide any further comment regarding the specific incident or those involved.
‘Legislation is regularly reviewed by the QPS to ensure our procedures remain consistent with the current legislation,’ they said.
‘The QPS ensures officers are supported with training and guidance in relation to the management of individuals lawfully prescribed this type of medication.’