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.
‘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.
