Drug double-cross led to murder

Press, 20 May 1980, Page 6

Drug double-cross led to murder

Special correspondent Chofley A double-cross drugs deal was the motive for the murder of Auckland drugs boss, Martin Christopher Johnstone'. - A hushed Magistrate’s Court in the Lancashire town of Chorley, heard early this morning (N.Z. time) how Johnstone was lured to England on the promise of a big drugs deal, only to be murdered for his role in a previous bad deal. ' •

One of 12 people, three of them New Zealanders, is said to have been the mastermind of Johnstone’s execution.

Outlining the Crown case, Mr John Mantell, Q.C., said that one of the accused, Alexander James Sinclair, had ordered some heroin through Johnstone for his (Sinclair’s) English drug ring. However, said Mr Mantell. the drugs finally delivered by Johnstone were not sufficient.

“The money sent by Sinclair to buy the drugs had been diverted by Johnstone for his own purposes,” he said. “Other couriers were not being paid as they should have been, as was one of the accused, Andrew Samuel Maher, a close friend of Johnstone’s.” Mr Mantell went on to say that in August, 1979, something went “very badly wrong” over a deal of substantial quantity of heroin. The amount of drugs which came back to Sinclair was much less than. could have been bought, and Johnstone explained this away by saying .that he had been doublecrossed.

“But there was suspicion in the ; mirid of Sinclair that Johnstone was doublecrossing him,” said Mr Mantell.’

Johnstone set about trying to hide the deficiency by cutting the heroin (adding a substitute), but once it was used in England the complaints started to come in.,. Maher, who had been part of Johnstone’s organisation, became worried about the double-cross, because he would have been regarded as equally responsible. He made several telephone calls to Sinclair and- said Mr Mantell, the plan. to murder Johnstone was being hatched.* v

.“The motive .- may . .have been retribution and- punishment for the double-dealing, or that Sinclair wished, to eliminate a rival' in the drugs trade. In . agreeing to carry out the murder, Maher may have, been influenced by threats made against him and : His family,” said Mr Mantell. He mghit also have seen jartMbpporturiity to advance ihis own. wealth. Mr Mantell I said the plan to kill was all part of-, an over-all conspiracy, of drug trafficking. Maher telephoned Johnstone and told him of a good drugs deal in Glasgow, for which lie needed Johnstone to be present. . .- “Johnstone took the bait,” said;- Mr Mantell, “and on October ; 7~; 1979, he ■ flew -to London arid went- straight to J

Maher’s house in ■ Leyland, near Chorley'.”.■ ■ Two days later Maher, Johnstone, and another of the men accused of murder, James Smith, of Livingstone, near Edinburgh, were allegedly going to Glasgow in Maher’s Jaguar car. “Martin Christopher Johnstone believed that he was going to Glasgow to conclude the drugs deal,” said Mr Mantell. “In truth he was going to his death.” Mr Mantell said that somewhere north of Lancaster on the A 6 who was driving, asked Johnstone to take over. As Johnstone got out of the car Maher leant across and shot him. Johnstone’s body lav on the :road and Maher, fired a secon shot into Johnstone’s head because he was making gurgling noises. < “The two men then dropped Johnstone’s body into the passenger seat and looked for a suitable place to park and put it in the boot. Maher took a knife and stabbed Johnstone in the stomach before driving back to his home in Leyland. “However, when they got there the lights on in the house revealed that a Barbara Pilkington, Maher’s girlfriend, and a Julie Huw, Johnstone’s girlfriend, were still up. “They drove around the roads "of West Lancashire with Johnstone’s body in the boot until it was safe to return. The body was taken,to the garage and then followed a most gruesome scene,” said Mr Mantell. Johnstone’s clothes, ring, and watch were stripped off him, but not an identity chain around his neck. “Maher than hacked off both of Johnstone’s hands with an axe and disfigured his face with a hammer and hacked open his stomach. They then tied weights -to Johnstone’s body. - ■ ■ “The garage was splattered with blood. They., put the bodv into the car and took, it to a nearby disused quarry, known locally as the Eccleston Delph, -where they rolled it in. Johnstone’s hands were put in a brown envelope arid taken to Scotland. They were then thrown into a river and the . car was disposed of. After several days, Miss Huw became anxious that she had , riot heard from Johnstone/ even though she had been told he had gone to New York on business. Huw and Pilkirigton, who knew about the murder, went on holiday, to Spain, Where Huw continued to fret that Johnstone had ’not been in touch with her, especially on her birthday, . . ■<.../ Pilkington then told Huw, that Johnstone had been murdered, and after both had unsuccessfully • tried to commit suicide they, returned to London to the home of Leila Constance Barclay, who is also charged with several drugs conspiracy offences. 4/ They next went to Huw’s mother, who telephoned the police. - - ■ “Julie Huw and- Barbara

Pilkington both have a remarkable story to telL. which both directly and ' indirectly led to the arrests and charging of the 12 defendants,” said Mr Mantell.

Although Pilkington had provided the police with crucial evidence for the case as far as the Crown was concerned, this case did not depend entirely on them. “The over-all picture which we hope to present is also drawn, from the accounts of events by another group of witnesses, and totalled 1400 pages of witness statements.” Each contributed to the over-all picture to a degree, said Mr Mantell. Even now, the full story of the drugs syndicate and the murder was not known. Mr Mantell said that some pieces of the picture were still missing, and that not everyone responsible and connected with the ' crimes was in the dock.

Some people he said, were out of reach and had avoided arrest.

“At one time or another between October, 1976, and December. 1979, each of the defendants had been with others a member of an international conspiracy to buy and sell drugs,” said Mr Mantell.

Strict security was in force at the start of the Chorley hearing. The first hour’s hearings were taken up with legal formalities in the crowded modern courtrooms. .Armed police were dotted throughout the building and as lawyers, journalists, and the public came to the court in the Lancashire market town of Chorley, they were met by an army of uniformed policemen who made stringent checks on their identity, physically . searched them, and ushered’them into Court. The Magistrate, Mr John Coffey, of Manchester, was displeased that! the 12 defendants who crowded into the specially constructed box With their police escorts were wearing handcuffs. “In my 30 years on the Bench I have never seen a defendant handcuffed for the duration of the proceedings,” said the Magistrate. “I find it totally. ■ repugnant, arid order that they be unhandcuffed immediately.”' •'

The. first hour was taken up with arguments about where the defendants; should stay overnight; at two local police stations or their remand prison. In spite of the tight security the 12 looked calm and relaxed. Karen Mary Marie Soich, who was charged under a. Kensington, London, address, entered. the dock smiling and chatting; Alexander James Sinclair, charged under the same. Ken -( sington address as Soich, had! a book in the dock. j

The third New Zealander, Erroll John [Hincksman, was also charged.under a London address. He-jand Sinclair both sat impassively 'through the procrtdirigs.- ’* "J