SUPREME COURT Student gaoled for drug offence

Press, Issue 33842, 14 May 1975, Page 5

SUPREME COURT Student gaoled for drug offence

Graeme John Nesbitt, aged 24, a university student and entrepreneur, of Wellington, was gaoled for two years and fined $3OOO by Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of offering to sell a narcotic, cannabis.

Nesbitt, who pleaded guilty to the charge on arraignment, was represented by Mr S. G. Erber. Mr G. K. Panckhurst appeared for the Crown.

His Honour said that Nesbitt had offered to sell 400 cannabis sticks to an undercover agent, and $4OO was involved in the proposed sale. “You clearly have ability, but unfortunately, you be-

came involved with drugs in 1968,” said his Honour. “Your record shows that you committed two minor drug offences in 1969 for which you were fined. It is quite clear that you have been closely associated with substantial operations in relation to drugs.” The present offence involved Nesbitt in bringing cannabis sticks from Wellington to Christchurch. Moreover, there was evidence that Nesbitt had. told the police officer concerned that he could get him more

cannabis sticks if he dealt direct with Nesbitt at his address in Wellington. In imposing sentence, his Honour said that he was guided by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in which the Court indicated that the scale of the operations in the offence was an important factor, but that the penalties for cannabis offences should be kept at a level which in operations of a comparable size, allowed room for distinct and more severe penalties going up the scale to the really lethal narcotics.

The Court of Appeal had stated that when assessing an appropriate sentence, a large scale operation in cannabis necessarily called for a deterrent sentence of imprisonment.

It had also been stated in the Court of Appeal that in cases of trafficking in narcotics for profit, that that power could most appropriately be resorted to, especially in cases where it could be seen that the offender was able to acquire assets through his dealings.

His Honour said that he had carefully considered the circumstances of Nesbitt’s offence, and his record, and had taken into account the sentences imposed by other judges on cannabis offences.