Drug appeal rejected

Press, 3 June 1981, Page 4

Drug appeal rejected

PA Wellington The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by a man convicted in the Supreme Court at Auckland in 1979 of conspiring to import drugs into New Zealand. The judgment, given by Mr Justice Somers, said that Brian James Curtis had been jailed for six years and fined $15,000 for conspiring with a woman named Rennie (or Skipper) to import heroin and cannabis. Curtis, also sentenced to five years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine for conspiring with a man named Fisher to import cannabis, had sought leae to appeal against his convictions and sentence. Outlining the case, the judgment said that on July 20, 1978, a woman named Susan .-Florence Rennie, who also called, herself Sharon Elizabeth Duncan and Christina Doreen Skipper, and

whho had passports under •ech name, arrived at. Nandi in Fiji on a U.T.A. flight from Singapore via Noumea. On that occasion she called herself Skipper. The next day, July 21, 1978, two suitcases accompanying her were found to contain drugs. Together their contents were 15kg of cannabis, the equivalent of about 17,870 sticks, and 1614 grams of a white powder of which 1423 grams was heroin.

The Crown contended on all three counts that the drugs were intended to be imported into New Zealand.

But the Crown also adduced evidence to show that in December, 1977, and January, 1978, Curtis and Fisher had been involved in a plan which was carried into effect in January, 1978, to import cannabis from Tonga in a crate containing an air-con-ditioning unit imported for

repair. A like conspiracy was alleged in respect Of a similar importation from Fiji in May. 1978. After reviewing the grounds of appeal, including alleged inconsistencies of verdicts, the judgment said that it had been submitted the verdict could not be supported, having regard to the evidence. “We do not find it necessary to do more than say that in our view the submission is untenable,” the judgment said. It said that counsel for Curtis, Mr B. J. Hart, had made it clear at the conclusion of the hearing that if leave to appeal against conviction was refused, he did not wish to pursue application to appeal against sentence. “Accordingly that leave too is refused.”