He had a joint but also a 2.5 -gram Pacson of what could be like cannabis.
He signed a form on which the mention appears “I recognize the facts and agree to pay the sum of 25 euros.”
But unfortunately, the device used to pay, the transaction did not work. He was informed that a home transaction proposal would be sent to him.
Having moved, he never received this document and therefore did not pay. The prosecution cited it at the hearing.
The defendant said he did not carry “cannabis” but CBD, authorized by law. It has been informed that in the event of positive analyzes, he would be ordered to pay the legal costs and the experts of expertise which are very high.
A toxicological analysis of the seized substances was carried out. “”The analyzed samples contain THC and THC-A, whose sum of the concentrations is greater than 0.3 % which is the threshold set in the royal decree which regulates amazing, psychotropic and soporific substances“Note the judge.”The concentrations measured, although exceeding the legal threshold, are very low, without comparison with those usually found in drug cannabis“, Specifies the court.”Conversely, CBD and CBD-A levels are high, meaning that it is cannabis light “, notes the judge again.
The defendant explained that he bought the labeled CBD substances from a dealer “official”.
“Error is a cause of justification if any reasonable and prudent man could have committed it by being placed in the same circumstances as those where the defendant was found“, Recalls the court.”The invincible error benefits the author of the offense provided that it relates to one of its essential elements,“estimated the Court of Cassation.
“The defendant could probably believe that it was CBD”
“In this case, the accused’s error on the nature of the substance he bought and transported, which is the essential element of the prevention that is accused, is invincible.“
So, “The latter could not have known that THC and THC-A levels exceeded legal tolerance other than by carrying out toxicological expertise. In view of the very low concentrations measured by the expertise, the defendant could probably believe that it was CBD when he consumed it.“
He was therefore acquitted.
