Drug moves draw fire from lawyers, students

Press, 20 September 1978, Page 1

Drug moves draw fire from lawyers, students

PA Wellington The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill had provisions which 'were “iniquitous and a startling departure from accepted law processes,” said the president of the New Zealand Law Society (Mr L. H. Southwick) yesterday.

Mr Southwick said in submissions to the Statutes Revision Committee that the society objected to a clause in the bill which provided for a court to impose a greater fine than usual on a person convicted on a drug charge, if it was satisfied that, “on the balance of probabilities,” any money or assets owned by the offender at the time of his trial had been acquired from “conduct that constituted a drug-dealing offence . . .”

Regardless of distaste for drug offenders, the provisions introduced into law a completely new concept for the standard of proof for a criminal offence — “a concept that this society strongly opposes.”

Mr Southwick said that, as the clause was worded, conduct that constituted a drug-dealing offence was not the offence of which the person was convicted. He said that the standard of proof required in connection with offences other than those of which a defendant had been convicted was of a lower standard, .and “not the criminal standard.” “This type of offence is not one where a person should be convicted on the balance of probabilities. The standard of proof of the additional offending conduct should also be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.” The society also had reservations about the introduction of listening devices to New Zealand,

“unless there is compelling .evidence of the need for this method of obtaining evidence in drug cases,” Mr Southwick said. However, he said the proposals in the bill were generally acceptable to the New Zealand Law Society, having regard to the evil the bill was designed to combat.

The New Zealand University Students’ Association, in its submissions, su -gested that the punitive approach had failed to control the increasing use of prohibited drugs. To some extent it might have encouraged it. The submission asserted that the bill was an attempt to remedy drug problems by the use of harsh punitive measures and severe encroachment on civil liberties. The association said that it believed the bill’s measures did not remove the market or the profit motive from drug trafficking.

One criticism it made was that the bill equated the penalty of trafficking with that of murder.' “This will mean that a trafficker will have nothing to lose when dealing with; those sent to apprehend him. Indeed, the killing of a policeman may be preferable, because of the possibility of a manslaughter conviction instead of a murder conviction.”

The association opposed the introduction of listening devices. “The potential for abuse is mind-boggl-ing. Does Parliament seriously consider that these methods will work in New Zealand, when years of experience in the United States have shown them to be of little benefit?” The association also urged the Government to legalise cannabis.

“We believe that the question of cannabis law

reform is more pressing to many people than any of the provisions contained in the bill itself. The attitude of the Government in ignoring the growing evidence at home and abroad is callous and deplorable,” the association said. “Many people, particularly users of marijuana, say that alcohol and tobacco are generally more dangerous. Certainly some of the old myths about the ‘dangers’ of marijuana have been shattered.”

Marijuana, the association said, had been s’lown to be more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol only in respect of the legal consequences of its use.

The committee heard nine submissions, including those last week from the New Zealand Society on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, the Council for Civil Liberties, and the General Practitioners’ Society.