Customs officer jailed for heroin offences

Press, 12 July 1980, Page 4

Customs officer jailed for heroin offences

; A customs officer, who • had wrecked his career and brought shame on his fam-j ily, was jailed for four years: on three charges of supply-! , ing heroin by Mr Justice! [Cook in the High Court i [yesterday. [ i Kevin Gerrard Hathaway.! [aged 27, married, had plead-i [ed guilty to the charges ini [the District Court. j Counsel emphasised that! ■Hathaway had not used his) [position in the Customs Department to facilitate the 'importing of heroin into New Zealand. i Mr G. K. Panckhurst, for [the Crown, said that as rhe iresult of information reiceived the police and Cttsitoms Department commenced an investigation into the drug-related activities of

Hathaway. On April 17. 1980, Trevor James Laird was arrested in Christchurch on a charge of possession of heroin for supply. Three grams of No. 41 grade heroin of about 30 per! cent purity were seized. The drug was in a cellophane

.•bag with black insulation; • tape around the top. As the! [result of Laird’s arrest a! imajor drug-squad operation) [ was mounted. [ Inquiries established that] [Hathaway was dealing in he-j jroin supplied by Brian) [Christopher Mules, an elec-i itrian employed by the Ricicarton Borough Council. [ On April 29, 1980, Wayne I [Roger Eggers arranged with) [Hathaway to supply him; with heroin. At 5.25 p.m. on April 29 Eggers met Boyd Napier Roberts, a friend of Hathaway’s in the car park of Kentucky Fried Chicken in Riccarton Road, and the handing over of heroin was observed by a police officer, ; but neither of the two men!'

was questioned. On May 1 a similar transaction took place between Roberts and Eggers at the

same spot. Eggers was followed and stopped. When his vehicle was searched a cellophane bag sealed with < insulation tape was found. It ; contained 1.04 grams of heroin of 12 per cent purity. 1 Eggers was arrested on ap

charge of having heroin for) supply, Mr Panckhurst said, i On both occasions about a I gram of heroin passed be- < tween them. The' plan had been forii Hathaway to deliver the heroin to Roberts and hep would then telephone him It when he wanted the heroin;; delivered to the buyer. i

i It was significant that all i six seizings of heroin in (Christchurch in April and i May were scentifically proved as coming from the same source of supply. Both Hathaway and Mules were distributing No. 4 grade heroin in Christchurch. i It was learned that Mules [had received the heroin from [ the importer who had travelled to New Zealand from Bangkok. The importer was |an associate of Mules and I was known to Hathaway Iwhn was aware that he was [the importer of the heroin. i When interviewed Hath'away originally denied deal!ing ' in heroin. He later admitted that he was aware [that Mules was dealing in i heroin and was using the [drug himself. He claimed [that Mules gave him the name, of Roberts through whom the heroin could be sold, said Mr Panckhurst. Mr P. H. B. Hall, for Hathaway, said that it was conceded’ that the prisoner faced three serious charges but only two grams of heroin were involved. HathJaway did nof accept some of

uthe prejudicial information tj given in the statement of • facts. [ For about 10 years Hathaway had been a close [friend of Mules and if it had [not been for that he might [not have found himself' in l this position. 1 Mules had purchased a j substantial quantity of hetroin from the importer and (Hathaway stupidly and [naively helped in its distribution. He gained very little and did not realise the risk he was running. Hathaway met the importer only once socially and it was only then that he realised that he had met him on a school cadet training 'course some years before.

The Crown had tried to imply that. Hathaway was i more involved in the drug ■ scene than he was. He was

not an associate of the importer as had been alleged. It had been a shattering experience for Hathaway ; and his family. After being in the Customs Department for 10 years his career was i wrecked and he was facing i

imprisonment. But he should : no be additionally penalised because he was a customs ; officer as he .had not used his position to facilitate the < importing of heroin. i Mules, who had admitted i dealing in a substantial ; quantity of heroin had been | jailed for seven years. Peter[< Gerrard Friel, who had 16h

grams of heroin and a substantial quantity of cash, had been jailed for two years and a half. Hathaway acknowledged dealing in only two grams of heroin. No significant cash was seized and no drugs were found in his possession so that Hathaway should receive a prison term less' than that imposed on Friel. • Hathaway had been in' custody for almost two, months. He had pleadedguilty and saved the expense, of a trial. He had no greatassets and if a fine was ini-[ posed it would fall on hisj wife. Mr Hall said. | His Honour said that as a (trained customs officer in a position of trust and responsibility Hathaway was fully aware of the horrific effects of heroin. In spite of that he

had made a close -friend of Mules, an addict and a dealer who was receiving the heroin directly from the im-i porter. Hathaway came from a; good family, was intelligent and had been given every opportunity. He had earnedgood money and had every [ prospect of continuing to do' so. His Honour said that he' could not accept that Hathaway had become involved in the drug scene because of; stupidity or naivety. His participation had been deliberate and was ,done for financial gain.