Reserved decision on drug import charge

Press, 12 February 1982, Page 5

Reserved decision on drug import charge

Decision was reserved until Monday by Judge Fogarty in the District Court yesterday on a charge against an American man who was stationed in the Antarctic this season, of importing 44.5 grams of cannabis plant into New Zealand on or about November 5 last year. The defendant, Philip Valentine Colbert, aged 41, a manager, denied the charge. Prosecution evidence in the case, and defence submissions. were heard on Wednesday.

The Judge then adjourned the hearing to yesterday for final submissions by the Crown solicitor (Mr B. M. Stanaway) who prosecuted for the Customs Department. Mr S. G. Erber appeared for the defendant. Prosecution evidence had been that customs officers intercepted and opened a parcel amongst mail destined for persons engaged in American Deep Freeze operations in Antarctica. The package contained 44.5 grams of cannabis plant, wrapped in plastic bags and packed in a tea tin. Further inquiries by the department led to the addressee in Antarctica producing a letter allegedly written by the defendant in October, before his arrival in Antarctica. In the letter the defendant was alleged to have advised that’ he had arranged for a friend to send some "Peasant’s Delight." and that he trusted it would be okay and that if any questions were asked, the addressee should just refuse to accept the package. On the defendant’s arrival in Christchurch from the Antarctic last week he was interviewed by a customs officer and allegedly admitted having sent the letter, but claimed that "Peasant’s Delight" referred to a brand of tea.

A further reference in the letter to a "weed famine" was said to be a term used between the defendant and the person in the Antarctic. The defendant had claimed when interviewed that he had suggested the recipient refuse the package if questioned. because of a conservation treaty amongst countries involved in the Antarctic, prohibiting the taking of foodstuffs, vegetables, and plant material to the Antarctic. 1 No defence evidence was called but Mr Erber submitted on Wednesday that there was no case to answer. The evidence against the defendant had been wholly circumstantial. The defendant claimed he had requested camomile tea. He intended the goods to be mailed to the Antarctic and it was an

accident that it happened to land in New Zealand. In his final submissions yesterday Mr Stanaway said the circumstantial evidence against the defendant should be looked at in a global manner. There were sufficient proven facts to prove the inferences.

He said the reference to a “weed famine,” and the suggestion to refuse the package if questions were asked, and to pick out what one could use were more likely to be applicable to a drug than to a herbal tea.

Referring to the alleged importation into New Zealand, Mr Stanaway said it was clear the defendant knew the produce would

came to New Zealand. It was no defence to the charge to suggest that the defendant was mistaken in his belief as to whether or not the items, in transit or “via” New Zealand, were subject to this country’s jurisdiction. Mr Stanaway submitted that the defendant had been a principal rather than a party to the importation. Mr Erber submitted in reply that the act required more than a transitory landing of goods.

He said the facts were so slight that the Crown was asking the Court to draw inferences from inferences, and the more this went along the line the more hazardous it became.