Judge rejects claims against police

Press, 29 May 1981, Page 10

Judge rejects claims against police

Allegations that an undercover constable had supplied barbiturates to a woman and coerced her husband into supplying him with morphine and cannabis, were rejected by Mr Justice Cook in the High Court yesterday. ' His Honour sentenced David John Foster Nee, aged 23, unemployed, to six months imprisonment on a charge of supplying morphine, a class B drug, and selling cannabis to an undercover constable in 1979.

Nee pleaded guilty to the charges on arraignment. In 1979 a plainclothes police constable known as Graeme Anderson was working in Christchurch on undercover duties to detect drug and other criminal offences, the police statement said. On August 2, 1979, Nee sold six cannabis sticks to the undercover constable for ?78 in the car park of the Riccarton Mall. The cannabis weighed 7.2 grams. By arrangement the, constable went to Nee’s home on August 9, 1979, and was supplied with 10 sachets of white powder which was found on analysis to be 225 milligrams of morphine worth $2OO. When arrested Nee denied any knowledge of both offences, the statement said. He had previous convictions.

As soon as the case was called defence counsel said that he had just been given a letter by Nee to hand to his Honour. The Crown ejected and after an adjournment defence counsel said he would not produce the letter. Mr C. M. Ruane. for Nee,

said that his client now admitted the offences. He acknowledged that he had been involved in the drug scene up to 1978, and then broke his connections but, unfortunately, he later resumed them. His wife had also been involved with drugs and had been a registered addict on methadone treatment. Counsel submitted that the case came close to the undercover constable inducing someone to commit offences. Nee was introduced to the undercover constable by a friend and the constable made a number of requests for drugs, which were refused.

The constable then began pestering Nee’s wife who was addicted and on one occasion gave her a barbiturate which he watched her prepare and inject into herself. Because of that her dependance on drugs flared up again and her, marriage was put at risk.

Nee considered that the only way he could get the man off his back was to supply him with the cannabis he had been requesting. When that was done thpconstable asked for harder drugs and was supplied with morphine by Nee in the hope that he would go away.

His Honour: If that was the case he should have gone to the police.

Nee’s marriage had since broken up and he was now living in a de facto relationship, and his child was in a Social Welfare Department home. He had spent three months and a half in Addington prison, Mr Ruane said. Mr B. M. Stanaway, for the Crown, said that the' strongest objection was made to unsubstantiated allegations made against the conduct of the undercover constable. There was no evidence that the constable had supplied Nee’s wife with drugs. It was hearsay of the worst kind. His Honour said that Nee had connections with the drug scene in 1975 and the following year he was convicted for using morphine. For a time he had broken from drugs but, unhappily, he became involved again. Through his counsel Nee had made severe criticism of the activities of the undercover policeman. Because of the way the drug underworld operated it was essential to have undercover operations to detect offenders. People who dealt in drugs had to be discovered and charged. The serious allegations made by Nee against the undercover constable were completely unsupported by evidence, his Honour said.