Drug charge not proven

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33979, 21 October 1975, Page 7

Drug charge not proven

After a retirement of half an hour a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday Reginald Ronald James Storer, aged 30, a factory labourer, not guilty on a charge of possessing a narcotic, cannabis, for sale. Mr Justice Casey discharged Storer.

Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown, which called five witnesses, and Mr C. B. Atkinson for Storer, who pleaded not guilty. The defence called no evidence. Evidence was given that a boy, aged 15, saw Storer on July 6 standing on a fence and lifting up some tiles on the roof. He had in his hand I a plastic bag containing al whitish substance. Gladys Noeline Cunningham said that she lived next door to Storer. About 7 p.m. on July 7 she was waiting for her son to come home from nightschool when a car pulled up at Storer's home. She saw two figures, one holding the other up, at the roof. The person on top appeared to be putting something up the drainpipe. Detective Sergeant Colin Thomas Dalzell, of the drug squad, said that on July 8 he was a member of a police party which executed a search warrant on Storer’s home. Under the roof tiles near the back door was found a plastic bag containing 11 foil-wrapped sticks of cannabis. Storer denied any knowledge of the cannabis sticks. When told that he had been seen by a neighbour up on the roof near where the cannabis was found Storer denied ever having been up on the roof.

The cannabis found in the roof was in the form known as Buddha sticks and usually sold at between $lO

•and $l4 each, Detective SerB eant Dalzell said. Pauline Miriem Easterbrook a social worker> said that on July 9 she had a long conversation with Storer - They discussed drugs and he to!d her that be had been Picked up for having "stuff”. She told him he was a fool and asked him why. Storer said that he was about $BOOO in debt. He had had girls living with him and that they had been giving the drugs to boys but not collecting the money. He bought the cannabis for $9 and sold it for $lO. To Mr Atkinson Mrs Easterbrook said that when Storer referred to the sale of cannabis she did not know whether he was referring to a previous occasion or the present. In his address to the jury Mr Atkinson said that this was a grave charge and it had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Storer had possession of the cannabis but also that he had it for sale. Even if the jury found him not guilty on this charge he would go scot free because he also faced a charge of simple possession of the same cannabis. The boj’ had spoken of seeing Storer with a w’hitish substance which could be anything. The woman on whom the Crown relied to prove that Storer had possession for sale had admitted that she did not know whether he had been referring to this or some other cannabis or occasion, Mr Atkinson said.