SUPREME COURT Husband sent to prison and wife to Borstal

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32661, 17 July 1971, Page 5

SUPREME COURT Husband sent to prison and wife to Borstal

Robert Kenyon Good, aged 24, a photographer, was gaoled for 18 months when he appeared before Mr Justice Beattie in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence on a charge of being in possession of a narcotic, cannabis, for the purpose of supplying others. His wife, Raewyn Valerie Ann Good, aged 19, a student teacher, was sent to Borstal when she appeared for sentence on charges of being in possession of cannabis for the purpose of supplying others and of importing cannabis into New Zealand. Mr C. A. McVeigh appeared for Robert Good, Mr P. G. S. Penlington for Raewyn Good, and Mr N. W. Williamson for the Crown. Robert Good pleaded not guilty to the charge, but was convicted after a trial by jury. His wife pleaded guilty to both charges. Evidence was given at the trial of Robert Good that the police found about 250 z of hashish, the resin of cannabis, in a plastic bag buried in the back garden of the house occupied by the two accused in Brisbane Street. Mrs Good, who was called by the defence, said in evidence that the hashish was posted to her by pen-friends in India and that she buried it in the garden without telling her husband, who knew nothing about it until it was found by the police. Mr McVeigh said that Mrs Good had been taking narcotics before Good met her and counsel submitted that Good had no influence on her in that respect. •Third person” While Good was on a trip to India his wife had come under the influence of a very strong-willed and very determined underground character in Christchurch. Counsel said that he could not mention the third person's name in open court because Good feared for his safety if it was. Good feared the recriminations would be severe even if he was in prison. An illicit deal had been worked out between this third person and Mrs Good which had resulted in the sending of letters to her penfriends in India seeking drugs. Mr McVeigh said he urged his Honour to give the

d strongest possible weight to is the view that the jury’s vern diet went only so far as to !r say that Good knew that the le drugs were at his home in >r Brisbane Street. That made g Good's culpability much less than if he had put the drugs >f where they were found. *, Good's previous offences 1, had occurred when he was r, addicted to drugs, but he was e now cured of his addiction, n Mr McVeigh said. >• Mr Penlington said that he *- had no submissions to make d about the “third person” beo cause he had received no instructions on the matter. >- “Mrs Good finds herself in r her present tragic position as i- a result of her voluntary I. confession,” Mr Penlington said. “At the first trial of Mr t Good, contrary to strong s iegal advice, she gave eviy dence and subsequently she y was charged on a judge’s certificate and indicted in e this court. At the retrial of e Mr Good, again against f strong legal advice, she gave ;, evidence for her husband.’ e Mrs Good’s professed affece tion for and loyalty to Good 1 had crossed the bounds of reason and logic and her pre--1 sent predicament stemmed - from that. However, she did s not seek to excuse herself in s any way on that account. She 1 had the potential to become - a useful and law-abiding citir zen. s It was plain that up to the end of 1969 Mrs Good had s displayed many outstanding - qualities and attributes. By r then she had acquired an imt pressive list of achievements, r both academically and in sport. As well she had, in effect, been her father’s , housekeeper since the age of . 11. J Mrs Good knew that what she did was wrong, but she I had no intention of selling the drugs. She said that she j had no physical dependence . on drugs and counsel produced a doctor’s certificate , to that effect I Mr Williamson said that he . knew nothing about the third i man and that it was the ; Crown’s view that Mrs Good ■ , took a minor part in the mat- . ter. I Judge’s view 1 ' Speaking to Robert Good, • his Honour said that the 1 : amount of drug involved in 1 the offence was 700 grams of ! I hashish. That was no small amount, and it was found in 1 25 separate packets which ! demonstrated that it would < reach other persons. < “Your wife, a young woman of 19, gave evidence < at your trial in an effort to < exculpate you, but the jury s did not accept her evidence, t You and she married after c you were charged with this ' offence and then she pleaded t guilty to charges of being in t possession of cannabis for the purpose of supplying i others and importing canna- I bis,” said his Honour. “This is your fourth nar- i jcotic offence, and in my view f the most serious. It is dis- < curbing that a person like t ;you, who has been using < drugs, including cocaine, < heroin, morphine, and LSD, from 16 years of age, has been able through lack of checking by the authorities Ito attend lectures at Canterbury and Victoria UniversiI ties without the knowledge of the faculties concerned. "While refraining from comment I wonder how many ‘young students may have - been introduced to this habit , by you,” his Honour said. Mrs Good’s case had caused him anxious concern, and the time she would spend in Bor- 1 stal would no doubt be de-

termined by her response to therapy, said his Honour.