SUPREME COURT Appeal Against Sentence On Narcotics Charge Fails

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31101, 2 July 1966, Page 23

SUPREME COURT Appeal Against Sentence On Narcotics Charge Fails

The appeal of a 22-year-old commercial traveller from, Lower Hutt against six weeks’ imprisonment for being in possession of a narcotic was rejected by Mr Justice Mac-' arthur in the Supreme Court yesterday. The appellant, Graeme Ivan John Mclntosh, had been charged after a complaint that he had smoked marijuana in his room at Coker’s Hotel on June 12. He was described by his counsel, Mr R. E. Harding, of, Wellington, as a young man of good background but unstable character, who as a first offender would be better straightened out by stringent probation rather than imprisonment. But Mr C. M. Roper (for the Crown) submitted that narcotics charges were comparatively rare in Christchurch, and only a strong expression of disapproval by the courts would keep matters that way. His Honour quoted the sentencing magistrate's comment to Mclntosh: “To stop the narcotics traffic from prospering, ft is necessary to impose a sentence which will discourage people like you from getting involved in it.” Despite Mclntosh’s comparative youth and good record, said his Honour, he was unable to say that the sentence w'as clearly excessive, or in-j appropriate, and the appeal must be dismissed. Counsel's Submissions Mr Harding said he had'

heard, although he placed no ■ credence on it, that it was' the policy of magistrate’s to I : impose imprisonment in all: ' such narcotics charges—and ■ submitted that the Supreme, Court could have nothing to; do with ’’machine-made sentences.” , His Honour: I know noth-j ing of it. Mr Harding said that Mclntosh had, until recently, been a young man too big for his boots. He had foolishly not realised it was unwise to get 'drunk in the Coburg Hotel in Auckland, in the company of persons who sounded like pedlars—persons who were probably looking for a mug, and found one. Mclntosh had been threatened into buying 4oz of marijuana for £l5, and on coming to Christchurch had decided to try it. j “And of all places, he chose his room at Coker’s Hotel,” said Mr Harding. “He didn’t even know, as anyone iwho dipped into modem fic- ! tion would, that you can smell | the stuff on the street, if it ■ is being smoked in the ■ house.” ' The circumstances justified leniency for a first offender, : submitted Mr Harding. Six weeks’ imprisonment would not do much to stabilise (Mclntosh. Rather, he needed protracted supervision, with- , out too much money—“so that he cannot go hob-nobbing 'round the country, talking to

any rubbish he is weak enough to meet in a hotel,” Mr Harding said. Comparative Sentences Mr Roper conceded that imprisonment was not an invariable sentence on narcotics charges. In Auckland and Wellington, similar cases had been met by substantial fines, he said. But Christchurch had been comparatively free of such charges, and would only be kept so by strong sentences. His Honour, after retiring to consider his decision, said that Mclntosh had been sentenced by an experienced magistrate, Who had had before him a very full report from the probation officer, and who had considered all the relevant circumstances. “This offence is not a case of a person casually coming into possession of one or two reefers, perhaps given to him,” said his Honour, “but of a person being in possession of a substantial quantity of narcotic, and having paid a substantial price for it.” The Magistrate, remarking on the grave social evil of indulgence in narcotics, had rightly regarded that as an important point. “I have anxiously considered the whole matter, but notwithstanding the appellant’s comparative youth and previous good record, I find myself quite unable to conclude that the sentence in this case W’as clearly excessive or inappropriate,” his Honour said. Sentenced Reduced On a similar appeal by 19-year-old seaman, John

Evans Ross Connon, against six months’ imprisonment for being in possession of marijuana he had brought into New Zealand, his Honour reduced the term to one of two months, to be followed by a year’s probation. His Honour, in a reserved decision given from the bench, said he reduced the sentence because of Connon’s youth and his previous clear record. The magistrate who had sentenced Connon had rightly regarded his offence as serious, in that he had deliberately acquired marijuana in Panama, while a member of the crew of an overseas ship, and brought it into New Zealand, said his Honour. But he must disagree with the Magistrate on the one matter of the weight which should be attached to Connon’s age and record. Connor’s appeal was argued by Mr D. H. Stringer last week—but the circumstances of the case were not connected with Mclntosh’s. Connon’s original penalty of six months’ imprisonment was Imposed under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1927, and its amendments —since repealed by the Narcotics Act, 1965, under which Mclntosh was charged, and which imposes a new maximum of three months’ imprisonment for being in possession of a narcotic. The disparity in penalties was a main ground of Connon’s appeal.