Login Register

'Spiteful' cops left bath full of earth in house of cancer sufferer growing cannabis to use to ease his pain

By South Wales Evening Post  |  Posted: May 20, 2014

The bathtub of soil at the home of Wyndham Martin, of Clydach.

Comments (27)

A JUDGE has criticised police for acting out "spite" by leaving a cancer sufferer's bath full of earth.

Cancer sufferer Wyndham Martin's home was searched by officers who found 25 cannabis plants.

When officers arrived they found lamps, plant food and timers in different rooms at his home at Heol Eithrim in Clydach. He was growing the plants to use with a vapouriser to assist with his condition.

James Hartson, for Martin, said the drugs eased the pain of his stoma valve which often became infected.

Related content

But Mr Martin said when officers left, taking the evidence with them, they filled his bath with earth from the plants.

Judge Peter Heywood asked Mr Hartson: "What's the purpose of that?"

Mr Hartson, himself a former policeman, replied: "Having spent 20 years in Her Majesty's cloth, I cannot think of a reason."

The judge then said: "There seems a degree of spite there. It's not the way police officers should behave."

The judge asked prosecutor John Lloyd to look into the claims, saying the officers' supervising officer should be contacted.

"Perhaps some appropriate reprimand or disciplinary proceedings could be issued," he said.

The judge said he would not jail Martin because he was obviously a sick man, and suspended the 12 week sentence for 12 months.

Martin had admitted producing cannabis but was not supplying the drugs to others.

A police spokesman said: "Officers executed a warrant and discovered cannabis plants and growing equipment which was seized as evidence. We note the comments of the judge and the matter will be looked into."


Read more from South Wales Evening Post

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters


  • Gwyddno  |  May 21 2014, 7:53PM

    MrPyjamas: The matter went before a Court of Law and was dealt with in accordance with the law. Your argument uses extreme examples and most would consider them as not fitting for a reasonable debate. The fact that the man is not a doctor is irrelevant. If you read the piece above you'll notice that the Judge questions why police officers trashed the man's bathroom. Dai_Chotomy: I realise that you and your son have suffered and I wish the best for both of you. Having visited the US National Cancer Institute website I cannot find evidence of any campaigning for changes in the laws about cannabis. It would be highly irregular, if not downright dangerous, for a public-funded health research facility to 'go political'.

    |   2
  • MrPyjamas  |  May 21 2014, 7:02PM

    Sick or not cancer or no cancer the law is the law and it should apply to everyone equally. You wouldn't want a murderer or rapist to be given a more lenient sentence just because they were a cancer patient. It's awful and all that he has cancer but that should not grant him immunity from the law. Anyway he isn't a doctor he is not qualified to say its for medical purposes, if anything drugs users should be getting longer sentences.

    |   -14
  • Dai_Chotomy  |  May 21 2014, 5:00PM

    "Medical" is not smoking the stuff. Used properly it may well have uses. Heroin has perfectly legitimate uses. Misuse however is a completely kettle of fish. My son was been sectioned three times and will never come off medication. My last words on the subject because I will not enter into any further discussion in this thread or in another, is that, the chemicals in cannabis may well have beneficial uses. The illegal uses, smoking or consumption are dangerous and is quite correctly prohibited. A diatribe is a forceful argument against the norm. A forceful argument against the prohibition of cannabis is a diatribe.

    |   -15
  • PJL1967  |  May 21 2014, 11:48AM

    Dai_Chotomy should watch this before declaring he has a closed mind on the subject. The surprising story of medical marijuana and pediatric epilepsy: https://http://tinyurl.com/kh6k2r8

    |   8
  • Dooyah  |  May 21 2014, 10:07AM

    Dai_Chotomy, Okay. You reject the findings of legitimate scientific research by a reputable US Cancer Institute but please don't refer to the study as a 'diatribe'.

    |   9
  • charioteer17  |  May 21 2014, 10:07AM


  • malcolmkyle16  |  May 21 2014, 9:56AM

    1) Tobacco is cancer causing largely because it delivers specific carcinogens such as NNK and NNAL that are not present in cannabis. Not all "tar" is created equal, and tobacco has some of the most carcinogenic types of tar known to science, whereas cannabis does not. 2) Cannabis (marijuana) use is associated with a DECREASE in several types of cancer... potentially even providing a protective effect against tobacco and alcohol related cancer development. Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006. Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728. "Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it." So there we have it: Tobacco Causes Cancer and Cannabis Prevents Cancer - even when smoked!

    |   6
  • icarusty  |  May 21 2014, 2:59AM

    Our wonderful police forces can do whatever they want. It's great if you're a police officer. Deal with it.

    |   -1
  • Dai_Chotomy  |  May 20 2014, 11:17PM

    Thank you for directing me to the malcolmkyle16 post. I am sorry but I don't bother to read diatribes supporting the use of this foul substance. I have a closed mind as far as the illegal use of cannabis is concerned. As would anyone else who had had to visit their son in a mental hospital on three separate occasions because of the misuse of this "harmless" weed. And by the way, I agree that 25 plants is one heck of a lot for one person's personal use.

    |   -24
  • shepherd2011  |  May 20 2014, 6:44PM

    Nasty Pigs !

    |   13