£30 Fine For Breach Of Poisons Regulations

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29268, 28 July 1960, Page 6

£30 Fine For Breach Of Poisons Regulations

<M«W zeauma i*r«u amocmnoui

AUCKLAND, July 27. The aeope of the heaflng of a charge of being found in possession of drags in breach of the Poisons Begalations had expanded far beyond what eonld be regarded as normal, said Mr W. S. Spence, BJH, in the Magistrate's Court at Auckland today. For a number of reasons be had allowed the hearing to take the course it had, said the Magistrate. “The only issues I have to decide here are not whether there were threats made or stand-over men in the picture,” he said, “I have to decide whether the defendant had, around about February 15, in his possession poisons of the types-nominated.” The Magistrate allowed the accused suppression of name. “I feel that the general administration of justice requires his name not to be published at this stage,” he said. "I think counsel know, without my going into it, exactly what is in my mind.” The accused had pleaded not guilty to two charges. One, which alleged he defaced the

names or statement from packets of chloral hydrate and tincturf of cantha'radin, .was dismissed. He was fined £3O on the second charge which alleged he had poisons in his possession—amytal. nembutal, sodium amytal, chloral hydrate and tincture of cantharadin—in breach of the Poisons Regulations, in that they were not contained in packages bearing every name or statement of the nature of their contents as required. Evidence Suppressed The Magistrate prohibited publication of evidence given by an analyist and a pathologist of the properties, nature and effects of the drugs found in the accused’s possession. A 19-year-old girl, whose name was suppressed, said she met accused' about 18 months ago at a club he ran. She said he once asked her whether she would like to go to a party where they had drugs . She declined. The accused told her they were “good parties.”

A 18-year-old girl whose name was also suppressed, said she met the accused at a Christmas party at his place. She saw a blue capsule similar to some produced in evidence on the floor. Constable A. J. Leyland, of the Special Duties Police, said he saw the accused last August at the office of his counsel (Mr B. O. Webster). The accused told him he was the proprietor of a certain club and was concerned at an undesirable male element infiltrating it, who were handling • drugs. This element was entlc--1 ing females to parties where ' drugs were administered and sex t orgies developed. The witness said an undercover ’ policeman was introduced into ' the club but he learned nothing. Police Inquiries The witness made inquiries about the accused and became “somewhat dubious’* about his ‘ motives in complaining. He again ■ saw him ir Mr Webster’s office 1 and the accused told him he had . “kept in” with the gang and was in a position to help. t The witness asked him if he , could get samples of the drugs • for analysis.

On November 21, Mr Webster handed him four lots of drugs. Two were in tablet form. One was a small pile of chemical crystals and the fourth was a small bottle of liquid. The witness said he had warned the accused every time he saw him not to do anything illegal—that the police would not countenance it. The accused gave him a list of names and the police had investigated these people but had taken no action. One name was that of a “highly respected” and reputable chemist. To Mr Webster, the witness said when he first met the accused he had asked about marijuana. A former special duties branch officer, Constable J. R. Hughes, said he joined the accused’s club and saw him and others handling blue-coloured capsules he thought were drugs. Later, with the witness who brought in the bag of drugs, he went to the accused’s gymnasium and uplifted certain nude photographs. “Lot of Insinuation” Opening the defence, Mr Webster submitted there was no case to answer on the charges. The Magistrate agreed this was so with the defacing charge and accordingly dismissed it. Mr Webster said the witnesses had invaded fields covering practically everything in the criminal calendar, but none had seen the accused in possession of any drugs in an unlabelled condition. There was a lot of insinuation, but what allegations were there to answer? The Magistrate agreed that the evidence had “boxed the compass.” Some matters brought in could now, perhaps, be ruled out as inadmissible, bvt there was a case to answer, he said. The accused gave evidence that there was nothing in his bag when he lent it to the 17-year-old girl who gave evidence yesterday. He had lent it to her because she was shifting. She was a model and he had got several professional photographic engagements for her. He had been told to encourage acquaintance with her by a special duties man because she was a potential source of marijuana. The accused said he had earlier suspected something was wrong with her because she and her woman companion (another witness) talked about nothing but abortions and such. Last December, he found that a locker in his gymnasium holding papers and photographs entrusted to him confidentially had been broken open and the contents stolen, a pin-up photograph of the 17-year-old was also missing. He thought this girl and her companion had committed the theft and he told the police. The accused said he went to the club because he had been asked by another girl for photographs of herself. These, too, were missing.

Telephone Call A man rang him after this, and told the accused that if he wanted the photographs of the girls he should communicate with him immediately at a city hotel The accused said he kept this appointment. The man was “Jes” Rogers, a previous witness. As a result of this meeting he interviewed his solicitor.

The accused said he treated Rogers “very calmly." He did not use violence, as he had “no need to use that sort of thing." Rogers got in touch with him several times.

Mr Webster: Did he make any proposition to you? Accused: Yes. He proposed that if I got the 19-year-old girl for him he would return the photographs. He told me that he had seen her photograph among the photographs there.

The accused said -he came to the conclusion that he was dealing with “perhaps a nut.”

“I didn't want to get'the photographs from the police, I wanted to do it quietly, without publicity, so I decided to do it by frightening him,” he added. To Mr D. S. Morris, who represented the Crown, the accused said he did not tell the police of the photographs because “I was frightened the photographs would get into wrong hands." To the Magistrate, the accused said he was running a model agency with about seven or eight girls. They did art modelling for professional photographers. The Magistrate said the accused said he knew nothing of the drugs. It was true that there was scanty evidence of a direct nature showing that the drugs were in his possession. “It doesn't add up,” said''the Magistrate.