Maximum not imposed

Press, 2 September 1977, Page 8

Maximum not imposed

i PA Wellington An Auckland Judge who questioned the leniency of the new Misuse of Drugs Act had not imposed the! maximum sentence available i to him in the case he cited, the Minister of Health, (Mr Gill) said. Mr Justice Chilwell said in sentencing a man on! charges of supplying cannabis that the new act, in force from June 1, had considerably reduced the maximum penalties the Court could impose in certain cases involving drugs. Mr Gill, to whom inquiries were referred by a Justice Department spokesman, said “in that specific case the. Judge could have sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment, a total of three months of each of five charges.” “But he saw fit only to impose a sentence of six months periodic detention and a fine." He said that even under the old Narcotics Act he could not remember a maximum sentence ever having been imposed. I

Mr Gill said he wanted to make it clear that cannabis was included in each of three classes under the new legislation and sentences ! could vary according to the i circumstances and the potential harm involved. In class A, the maximum penalty for supply was 14 years in prison and in class i B, 10 years. | Class C provided for a J maximum eight years for supply to people under 18 and three months for 18 and over. The secretary of the New Zealand Law Society, (Mr W. M. Rodgers) said, “In view of the short time the iact has been in force, it is I much too early to comment.” Mr Justice Chilwell, in sentencing the man on five charges of supplying cannabis, said that under the 1965 Narcotics Act the man would have been liable to a maximum term of 14 years prison. Under the new act, the maximum penalty was three months prison and a $5OO I fine on each charge.