Jail for ’naive drug smuggler

Press, 25 February 1977, Page 19

Jail for ’naive drug smuggler

Instead of making a profit •f $24,000 by taking 5000 sticks of cannabis from Sangkok to Australia, a joung New Zealand man lost .he $lOOO he used to buy the Irug, and yesterday he was sentenced to three years and i half in jail by Mr Justice 2asey in the Supreme Court. The man, Hamish Edmund Ihompson. an economist em>loyed by a travel agency in •rance, pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court last week liter the taking of depusijons to a charge of importng cannabis into New Zeaand. He was committed to die Supreme Court lor trial. Mr G. T Mahon, for Ihompson. said that the offence had arisen when temptation was placed in Thompson’s way by others, who told him that he could make i substantial sum for very jttle money. He met these persons in London, and they told him he could “make a quick buck” by buying canlabis in Bangkok, compressing it. and taking it to Melbourne. where they would buy it from him. Thompson was told that if tie bought SIOOO worth of ttannabis in Bangkok on his trip home to New Zealand they would buy it from him ’ for .$25,000 in Melbourne. What happened showed only too clearly Thompson's complete lack of knowledge' and experience in drug trafficking He was unable to compress the cannabis so he wrapped it in plastic and put it in a sleeping bag in his rase, where it was bulky and easily detected, particularly by dogs, who traced it by smell. On arrival in Sydney. Thompson realised how foolish he had been, and he decided to abandon the bag if tie could. Then he realised that if he did, and went on to New Zealand, the bag would be traced to him because it had his flight and ticket number on it. Faced with that dilemma. Thompson flew to Christchurch and put in a claim for lost luggage, in the hope that when the bag did eventually arrive in New’ Zealand separately it would pass through customs without being searched. However, in the meantime Sydney customs officials found the cannabis. They informed the Christchurch police and Customs Department. and the authorities were waiting for Thompson when he claimed the bag. He was found in possession of an air ticket for Melbourne on the night of the day he! went to collect the bag. It had never been Thompson’s intention to bring the cannabis to New Zealand, and I

he was about to take it back, to Melbourne when he was' apprehended, Mr Mahon said. The whole venture was distinctly amateurish, and had' little hope of succeeding, ac-1 cording to the detective sergeant in charge of the case. That showed clearly that! Thompson had not been in-1 volved with drugs previously. The probation officer said that Thompson was a naive; and immature person whowanted to “make it” in life' quickly. Initially he had denied all knowledge of the, cannabis, but then had made a full statement and had co-operated with the police. Thompson had been involved merely as a carrier. Thompson was a permanent resident of France, and his wife was returning to her

| family there. Because of his,; 'personality he would find ith . hard to serve a term in prison, and counsel asked his > 1; Honour to consider Thompson's need for rehabilitation. His Honour said that the ; depositions taken in the . I lower court showed that •I Thompson, after contacting some people in London, was I tempted to accept a proposition to take 5000 sticks of can-' i nabis from Bangkok to Australia. On the street market. 1 th,. drug would have yielded 1 * a net profit of about $24,000. ■ It was obvious that, I Thompson became involved! . in the hope of making a(. I large amount of money ven - : ] easily. He would take into’ •[account that it was quite]. I. clear that this was Thomp-l ■ son's only involvement with!

.the drug traffic, and that was; Iconfirmed by Mr Williamson. When the scheme wasi explained to Thompson by! two persons in London he' must have been subjected to an overwhelming temptation., which made it inevitable that! somebody of his rather naive! and perhaps inexperienced; personality, as disclosed in: the probation report, would] 'be unable to resist. I His Honour said that he' ] was not particularly 'impressed by the submission] that Thompson really! .intended to take the cannabis ito Melbourne, and that' it |arrived in New Zealand only, because he panicked when he] realised he might be sub-' Ijected to a customs search in I Australia Thompson had not been ini

trouble before, and he would take into account the tre.imendous disruption’ the [offence would cause to his ' personal life, particularly; ; because of the inevitable; .prison sentence which had to! I be imposed. (] “A. Mr Mahon has said? [the Court of Appeal has] ji indicated more than once that 1 lin imposing penalties the J Courts must make room for, ' the distinction between can-] nabis and the hard drugs.; 'Anything involving hard drugs is much more serious. “However, the Court must recognise that the importa-' tion and trafficking in caninabis is illegal and that this, was a pretty substantial quantity you were import-; ling,” said his Honour.