Drug conviction quashed

Press, 10 December 1982, Page 4

Drug conviction quashed

A Christchurch man who was arrested, and subsequently convicted in Gisborne, for having cannabis leaf in his possession while driving home from the Sweetwaters festival last February, has been successful in a High Court appeal against his conviction. The appellant, John Michael Condon, aged 27, a company manager, appealed in the High Court in Christchurch against his conviction. Granting the appeal and setting aside the conviction Mr Justice Roper said the evidence fell short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Mr G. R. Lascelles appeared for the appellant, and Mr B. M. Stanaway for the police. Evidence at the original hearing in Gisborne had been that a traffic officer saw the appellant’s car stopped on the incorrect side of a street. He apparently accepted the appellant’s explanation that he had stopped to seek directions from a pedestrian. Hojvever. the traffic officer noticed the appellant seemed drowsy and was unsteady on his feet. As there was no smell of liquor he advised the police in case a drug was involved. The appellant’s explanation to police for his mental and physical state was that he had driven for 10 hours from Auckland.- A search of his car disclosed four cannabis cigarette butts in the front ashtray, one in the rear' ashtray, and one in a screwed-up cigarette packet on the front passenger’s seat. The appellant was cooperative throughout and agreed to provide a blood specimen so that the presence of cannabis constituents in the blood could have been determined. However, it was decided, ultimately, not to take a specimen, said his Honour. His reserved decision traversed the explanations made by the appellant to the police, and again in evidence at his court hearing, of having picked up a young man

and woman who were hitchhiking to the festival. They had smoked in his car but he did not know whether they had smoked cannabis. They and their friends had been given free access to his vehicle so that they could listen to stereo tapes. The appellant smoked cigarettes, but claimed he did not use the ashtrays and was not aware of the contents of the ashtrays and the crumpled cigarette packet. His . Honour said it seemed curious that a user of cannabis would “carelessly” retain the butts when their disposal would be so simple. The total weight of cannabis in the six butts was under half a gram. His Honour said he agreed with Mr Lascelles’s submission that the evidence of the traffic officer and police sergeant went no further than establishing as a possibility that the appellant’s condition could not be accounted for by a 10-hour drive under adverse conditions. There was no smell of cannabis, but of mpre importance was the evidence of the appellant’s willingness to provide a specimen of blood, and the decision not to take one. In those circumstances, and having regard to the officers’ lack of qualifications to assess the cause of the appellant’s condition, no conclusion adverse to the appellant should have been taken from the evidence as to his condition, his Honour said. He said an . .empty, screwed-up packet on the front seat, even if noticed, might not convey anything sinister to the innocent observer. The appellant's evidence was also relevant as to the state of his car, with empty food containers and fruit juice cans. The appellant had left them in the car because he was “against littering anywhere.” His- Honour said the crucial question in the case was whether the appellant's explanation might reasonably be true. He' was satisfied the evidence fell short of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.