SUPREME COURT Sentence On Drug Charge Upheld

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32322, 13 June 1970, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Sentence On Drug Charge Upheld

Although his sympathy for the individual was in conflict with what might be for the good of the community, he could not say the sentence of two months imprisonment imposed on a University of Canterbury student on three charges under the Narcotics Act was excessive or inappropriate, Mr Justice Wilson said in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour dismissed an appeal by Eymard John Bradley, aged 22 (Mr G. R. Lascelles), against the sentence which was imposed in the Magistrate’s Court on Thursday on two charges of being in possession of cannabis and one of being in possession of cannabis seeds. Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown. There were several young people in the public gallery for the hearing. He was in no doubt that no punishment at all was needed to deter Bradley personally from offending again, His Honour said. But the

question was whether the nature and potential prevalence of the offence was such that a deterent sentence must be imposed, or if some punishment other than the ultimate indignity pf imprisonment would meet the case. If the offence was allowed to pass it would encourage the same offences in others. “The feeling is abroad, I know, that there is nothing wrong with using cannabis, and if you can get away with it, well and good,” His Honour said. “It may have got abroad because offenders have been treated with leniency. The statistics in the city since 1966 have shown that where Courts have imposed imprisonment there has been a marked decrease in offending. “When there has been leniency there has been an increase in offending.” Counsel’s Plea Mr Lascelles said Bradley had an excellent character and history. He had gained his BA. degree and was now studying for his M.A. degree, and it was not the case of a person who led a frivolous !and empty life. There were few cases

where the defendant had so many excellent references, and as the probation officer said, he had committed hisi first and last offence. Bradley had not been involved with “hard-line” drugs. In other much more serious cases lesser penalities had been imposed, while ' the Magistrate might have ' wanted to impose a deterrent penalty, in this case the penalty would be particularly ■ hard, and in many ways disastrous for Bradley. There had been a chance he might study in the United .States, but the conviction could affect this and the penalty imposed could also have a bearing. Deterrent Aspect The deterrent aspect had to be made very clear, his Honour said. It might be that Bradley must suffer so that .others of like mind would be in no doubt as to what lay in store for them. “If this saves five out of 10 it will be worth it.” The sentence would be far harder on Bradley than on others, Mr Lascelles emphasised. i "But that, too, is part of ; the deterrent,” his Honour said. ; The after-effects of the conviction would be felt by Bradley for the rest of his life, Mr Lascelles said. Taking into consideration the nature of the offences and the deliberate breaking of the law by a man of high intelligence and in a position of responsibility, his view was that the sentence was not excessive, his Honour said. He had been reminded of the terrible consequences to Bradley first from the drug conviction alone, his Honour said, and he had been reminded of the act saying a prison term of less than six months should not be imposed if there was any reasonable alternative. “I find this is a very hard case. It is impossible to be blind to the grief that the appellant has drawn on himself and his family by his defiance of the law, or to be oblivious to the damage he has done to his career.” The Magistrate was right to say that the more intelligent a person was, the more culpable he was if he offended, and the more he deserved to he punished, said his Honour.