Judge lifts name ban in heroin case

Press, 26 July 1978, Page 6

Judge lifts name ban in heroin case

PA Auckland A Supreme Court judge yesterday lifted the suppression of the names of two teen-age girls after they were found guilty of administering heroin to two 15-year-old schoolgirls. Mr Justice Sinclair said in the Supreme Court at Auckland that he had lifted the suppression order because drugs were involved in the case. The jury of eight men and four women returned a verdict of guilty against Susan Fiona Racey, aged 18, of Kohimarama. an unemployed masseuse, and Eleanor Clair Duffy, aged 19. of Ponsonby. also an unemployed masseuse Racey was convicted on two charges of administering heroin, and Duffy on one charge of administering. Both had pleaded not guilty to the charges. Each was remanded on bail of 8750.

with one similar surety, for sentence. Counsel for the defence (Mr A. G. Deobhakta) did not call evidence but addressed the jury. It was not in dispute. he said, that the two schoolgirls had consumed, along with the others, somethink like two bottles of rum. Both had admitted they (were not in the habit of ' drinking alcohol, and the jury had to examine the effect of their evidence in the light of their condition, said Mr Deobhakta The Crown had said it was an over-simplification to ask them to have a clear recollection of what happened. If that was so, how could the jury rely on the girls as to who administered what, how it was administered and. in fact, what was administered? Mr Deobhakta said two doctors who examined the schoolgirls found them to be in such a fit condition that !

I they did not think a blood or urine test, to see if they [were suffering from a drug intake, was warranted. He pointed to the statement made by the younger accused who said that she had put water into the dregs of heroin left over after they had used it. If the schoolgirls had been injected, was it with heroin or with pure water? he asked the jury. Mr Deobhakta said there was a conflict of evidence from both schoolgirls as to who had actually injected them, and he suggested the statements from both accused were as unsatisfactory and hazy as to who did what, as was the evidence from both complainants. Both statements were as unsatisfactory as the testimony given by the schoolgirls, the jury could place little reliance on both, said counsel.