SUPREME COURT Jury disagrees on cannabis charge

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32604, 12 May 1971, Page 18

SUPREME COURT Jury disagrees on cannabis charge

A jury in the Supreme Court last evening failed to reach a verdict on alternative charges against Robert Kenyon Good, aged 23, a photographer, of being in possession of a narcotic—cannabis—for the purpose of supply to other persons and being in possession of cannabis on February 18.

Mr Justice Wilson remanded Good on bail to May 21 for a new trial.

Messrs P. T. Mahon. Q.C., and J. L. Woodward ap-r-ed for the Crown and Mr McClelland for the accused.

Detective Senior-Sergeant Barry lan Stanley Kimber said that on February 18 he was in charge of a police party which searched a nouse at 60 Brisbane Street tenanted by the accused. When he found in an area of freshly dug soil the top of a tied plastic bag. he had the accused brought out The accused said: “What is that? Did you put it there?” The plastic bag contained a number of packages. Asked what they were, the accused reMied: “I don’t know. I’ve never seen it before.”

After flying to Wellington, . the witness gave the plastic ■ bag and its contents to Detective A. G. J. Wilkins, of the fingerprint bureau. There were three plastic bags inside the outer bag, two of which contained 10 small sealed envelopes. Inside the envelopes and the package tied with string were solid brown substances which he now knew to be hashish. Detective Wilkins said that he found two fingerprints belonging to the accused on an envelope and a plastic bag. Peter Rudolf Hentschel, a scientist employed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, said that the plastic bags and envelopes contained 24.940 z of hashish—the resin of cannabis. Defence evidence Raewyn Valerie Good,! who was called by the de-1 fence, said that she married' the accused on April 19. She! was a second-year student at the University of Canterbury! and was employed as a student teacher at the Teachers’ College. She was 19. She had started smoking marijuana about two or three months before she met the accused at the university. She had smoked It on odd occasions. Since she was 13 she had had a number of pen-friends, including some in India. She had written to some of these and asked them if they would

send her cannabis for New Zealand articles. She sent one pen-friend a small gold ring and $45 in Australian currency and he sent her back the parcel of hashish which had been produced in court. The day before the police came to the house she took the parcel home. Inside it she found about 35 pieces of hashish and a large slab. She put the broken pieces into small envelopes which she obtained from the accused's darkroom. She put all the envelopes, except one which she was going to smoke herself, in plastic bags and buried them. When the accused came home she showed him the small envelope with the hasish because she thought he would like to smoke some. He took the envelope, looked at the contents and told her to take it outside because they had friends coming that evening and they could not smoke it The accused did not know about the hashish she had buried, because she had not told him, said the witness. Parcel surrendered

After her husband was arrested she received a parcel from India which contained a shirt and a small quantity of cannabis. She handed the parcel to a clerk in Mr McClelland’s office, so that it could be given to the police.

Cross-examined by Mr Mahon, the witness said that she had been living with the accused since May of last year. The accused went to India while they were living together and arrived back in New Zealand about January 31 this year. He was in India for about four months and went there to take photographs for the press and to set up a handicraft business. The accused had also made an earlier trip to India. He had borrowed money to make the trips. i The witness said that the hashish arrived in New Zealand about two weeks after I the accused returned from India. She had not told the i police that she had imported i the hashish when they arrested the accused because she wanted to see what evidence they had against him and because she was frightened of being arrested and sacrificing her career.