Wife sobs as husband jailed for drug offences

Press, 19 August 1981, Page 4

Wife sobs as husband jailed for drug offences

With his de facto wife sobbing loudly in the rear of the High Court Charles Hare Moka, aged 30, left the dock in the High Court yesterday to begin a sentence of two years and a half imprisonment on nine charges. Moka had pleaded guilty to three charges of selling cannabis, three of receiving stolen property, two of supplying LSD and one of burglary. The offences were detected by an undercover constable w’ho worked in Christchurch from May, 1980, to March. 1981.

Some of the drug offences were committed jointly with his de facto wife. Yvonne Anne White, who has been sentenced to do 150 hours of community work because of special circumstances.

Un October 2. 1980. Moka burgled the home of Stephen Noel Robinson in Otley Crescent and stole a colour television set and stereo equipment valued at $1940 which he sold to the undercover constable for $370.

Moka also sold the constable stereo ■ equipment valued at $lBl4 which had been stolen from the home of Noel Anthony Painter in Barbadoes Street. The constable paid him $l5O.

Mr E. Bedo. for Moka, said that the practice of employing an undercover constable to entice Moka into committing crimes was questionable and was nothing more than a planned exercise in deception. Nothing was achieved except to show that Moka had a low threshold of resistance to criminal offending.

Mr Justice Hardie Boys said that Moka had an unhappy background and a

long list of convictions, mostly for crimes of dishonesty.

“You have spent long periods of your life — far too much of it — in prison and there was some reason to hope that after you were last released five years ago you had some sense and were going to settle down. “Unfortunately that hope has not been fulfilled and though you have assumed family responsibilities, you have behaved quite irresponsibly by trying to earn money from crime, and you have involved your de facto wife in your offending,” his Honour said. She had been treated very ■leniently because of special circumstances. The Judge had regarded the circumstances as exceptional and had taken the view that she had played a much smaller part in the offending than Moka.

The Judge had also taken into account that she had an eight-month-old son and was pregnant. Moka could not claim the benefit of those responsibilities. “But as .1 think you will well realise, I would be fail-

ing in my duty it 1 dealt with you with the same sort of leniency. It is necessary I am afraid that you go to prison once again.” said his Honour.

He would take into account that all the offences were committed within a period of about four weeks and all involved the same undercover constable, although it was fair to say that the circumstances suggested that there was nothing particularly isolated or induced about what had happened. The offences seemed to be indicative of a much greater involvement..

Dealing with the drug charges his Honour said that it was clear that •. Moka's involvement was more than a casual one and that he was a dealer. The cannabis charges involved 20 bullets weighing 26.8 grams which were sold for $266 and two charges of supplying LSD irivolved a total of 45 tablets sold for $246.

The Court of Appeal had made it clear that dealing in hard drugs was to be met with deterrent penalties and the personal circumstances of the offender were of little relevance, said his Honour.