Drug charges trial

Press, 18 July 1979, Page 4

Drug charges trial

A young man who wasi found with 91 tablets of a new drug which was said in evidence in the Magistrate s Court yesterday to be about: 100 times more potent than the drug from which it was derived, faced two charges under provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The defendant. Michael; O'Connell, aged 24. unemployed (Mr k. N. Hampton) was committed to the -Supreme Court for trial by Messrs C. A. Pilgrim and L. M Hooker, Justices of the Peace, after deposiiions frcm five prosecution witnesses. He was remanded in custody to the trial date. He elected jury trial and pleaded not guilty to the charges of having the drug D.M.A. (4-Bromo-2 5 dimethoxyamphetamine) in his possession on June 8; and having the drug DM A in his possession for suppiy. Sergeant G. C. Jones prosecuted Mr Hampton reserved his defence case. Constable D W. Keys gave evidence of interviewing the defendant and taking a written statement from him alter his arrest following the police search. "Ar the completion of the statement the defendant said he could not read it as he was still affected bv tablets he had taken.” the constable said. “I read the statement! through to him and he said it was correct.” The statement was not read in Court.

Lewis Kenneth Pannell, a : scientist in the chemistry division of the D.S.I.R", : Christchurch, gave evidence • of analysing the 91 tablets handed to him by the police. They were D.M.A., a powerful hallucinagenic drug. Cross-examined, he said this drug had only been in■eluded in the first schedule . under the Misuse of Drugs Act around mid-September lasr year. It was a relatively new drug to appear. Asked if it was an artificial compound, he said it was apparently prepared front one of the other class A controlled drugs, and was about 100 times more potent. Experience with the drug was mainly confined to literature, including reports in scientific journals and in police drug intelligence bulletins. From these, an insight could be obtained into the type of effect a drug such as this could have. He had not conducted clinical or laboratory tests as to the powerful nature, or, otherwise, of the ‘drug. , Detective Senior-Sergeant P Fitzharris, co-ordinator of the National Drug Intelligence Bureau at Police Head- 1 quarters, Wellington, said part of his duties included : co-ordination of drug inquiries. and collating of information on drug seizing statistics throughout New Zea land. His evidence from this’ point was objected to by Mr Hampton, and was sup-, pressed on Mr Hampton's I

t'Claim that it was hearsay and not within the recog- , nised exceptions for allowing ‘ such evidence. ’! Detective Senior-Sergeant •iW. R. Withers gave evidence (that a police party, with a i search warrant, went to the lidefendant's premises. The defendant was inter- '; viewed and searched, and an ’lenvelope containing the 91 '.squares of the drug was 'found in a jeans pocket, as 'well as a very small amount I of cannabis. The defendant did not re'iply when asked what the ■tablets were. “At this stage he was shaking uncontrollably.” the officer said. ' He denied knowledge of how he came to have the I I tablets. . 1 While being taken to the’ police station the defendant .(leaped from the car as it was . moving and attempted to run ’ through an arcade in Here- . ford Street, but was appre- ; hended after a short chase, j The defendant gave two ■false names during questioning. He said he had been given the envelope, and a; J piece of paper with an adjdress to send it to. I He had not got-around to! I I addressing the envelope. Mr Withers said a search (showed no paper with the; • iaddress. Cross-examined, he said; ‘the defendant did not appear; Jto be under the influence of] ■ drugs when first spoken to. I I However, he appeared sol J later in the day.