Man found guilty at second trial

Press, 18 November 1981, Page 7

Man found guilty at second trial

A jury.- in the District Court yesterday found a man guilty of a charge of selling cannabis to an undercover constable on October 27 last year. The defendant, ■ Anthony Henri Huybregts, aged 24, unemployed, was remanded on bail to December 1, for sentence by Judge Pain. He had denied the offence. ,It Was the defendant's second trial on the same charge in just under two weeks: On November 6 a jury at the first trial failed to reach a verdict, and was discharged, and a new trial ordered.

The jury yesterday reached its verdict after a retirement of three hours. Mr D. J. L. Saunders appeared for the Crown and Mr J. S. Halls for the defendant. The defendant had been alleged by the Crown to have been a party to the sale by another person of 10 cannabis bullets to the undercover policeman, and therefore in law guilty of the offence, committed principally by the other person.

Prosecution evidence was that the undercover constable visited premises occupied by the defendant and by a man, Bruce Steven Rowlands. aged 20, who has since been convicted of an offence involving the drug sale. Rowlands had previously offered to sell the constable some cannabis “bullets”. Inside. Rowlands asked how many bullets he wanted and the constable said he would buy 10. The defendant said he was sure they could accommodate him. When the constable inspected the contents of two of the bullets the defendant said it was the best “gear” they had received from their supplier for a while.

The constable paid $l2O to Rowlands for the bullets. The amount of cannabis plant in the bullets was found on analysis to weigh 9.7 grams. In a statement to the police after his apprehension the defendant allegedly said he could not remember the transaction but it could have occurred. He did not receive any of the proceeds and it

was not his cannabis which was sold to the purchaser. No defence evidence was called but Mr Halls, in his address to the jury, said the defendant had been foolish to live at a house in which drug sales took place. However, he had taken no part in the sale, or aided or encouraged it. He said there was a distinction between possession of the drug, and selling it, with which the defendant had been charged. He said the defendant had been merely an occupant in the same house as Rowlands and although he had full knowledge of the transaction which took place he elected to remain on the outside of the transaction.