$l00 demanded by drug pusher

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 34012, 28 November 1975, Page 17

$l00 demanded by drug pusher

A youth who had been involved in a deal with cannabis sticks which had been confiscated by the police had been “stood over” by members of the drug underworld for payment of $lOO. Mr Justice Roper [was told in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The youth. Raymond John; Pearce, aged 18, a labourer, was fined $2OO and was put on probation for a year on a charge of possession of the narcotic cannabis, for sale. Mr A. K. Grant, for the prisoner, said that the legislature provided for a mandatory prison sentence on such a charge unless there were special reasons. Only a small amount of cannabis had been involved. Pearce was a rank amateur whose only attempt at this kind of thing had brought him before the court. A Crown prosecutor had stated that Pearce had cooperated with the police and the detective from the drug isquad had said that he didi not regard him as any kind ■of threat. It was obvious from the evidence that if Pearce was to make any profit at all from the deal it would have been no more than $4 or $5. The offence had been committed at the instigation of another person who was yet to stand trial. This man had asked Pearce to act as his agent in the sale of the cannabis and thoughtlessly and stupidly he had agreed. Pearce was m possession of

Ithe cannabis sticks for only la very short time.

Because the cannabis had been confiscated by the police Pearce had been “stood over” for the payment of SlOO for the cannabis. The threats and demands for payment had been an alarming experience for Pearce and showed what went on in the drug underworld. Pearce had joined the territorial Army and he had given up his flat and had returned to live with his parents. A co-offender who was involved in a similar manner to Pearce had been sentenced to six months periodic detention in the Magistrate’s Court. Pearce was a first offender, Mr Grant said.

His Honour said that he had been convinced by counsel that there were special reasons why Pearce should not be sent to gaol. The quantity of cannabis involved was small, he was only 18, he had never been before the Court before, he had been prevailed upon by another person to commit the offence and there was no suggestion that he was seriously involved with drugs. Pearce had been helpful to the police but from the probation officer’s report it was obvious that he had problems that he could not or would not solve. Pearce was not the most placid of employees and got into disputes with his fellow workers. Pearce had plans to travel but after a conviction of this type he would find he had problems, his Honour said. He hoped that Pearce would think seriously about resumling his apprenticeship