$2000 fine on drug count

Press, 16 February 1984, Page 4

$2000 fine on drug count

A self-employed builder, formerly of Ashburton and now of Picton, was fined $2OOO when he appeared for sentence in the District Court in Christchurch yesterday on a charge of permitting premises which he rented in Ashburton River Road, near Methven, in March last year, to be used for the commission of an offence against the Misuse oi Drugs Act. The defendant, Peter Foster Maynard, aged 22, had been found guilty of this offence by a jury at his trial in the District Court in Timaru late last year. He had been found not guilty of four other drugs charges — two of possessing cannabis plant for sale or supply on February 7 and March 24, and two of being parties to these alleged offences. Evidence at the trial had been that various quantities of cannabis plant, weighing more than Ikg, had been found in the farm cottage and sheds which the defendant rented at the time. The defendant denied knowledge of the cannabis and said others stayed at the premises and he had stayed there only irregularly.

Imposing the fine yesterday Judge Pain said the

evidence at the trial had shown considerable drug activity at the premises. Substantial quantities of cannabis were found in and about the house and the jury’s verdict showed that the defendant was aware of the presence of drugs. Although his participation was not proved, he allowed it to take place on premises he occupied. On the evidence it would be impossible for the defendant not to have known of the presence of drugs. Not long before the police search the owner of the premises had brought to his notice the presence of a considerable quantity of cannabis in an implement shed. Notwithstanding that, the activity with drugs continued. The offence could not be regarded as minor. It carried a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. The Judge said that the case had left many questions unanswered and there was no real explanation of the defendant’s knowledge in the matter and why he permitted the offence to continue. The Judge said that he found little in mitigation of the offence.

However, the defendant had no previous convictions and he had shown himself otherwise to be of particularly good character and had achieved well. A fine was the appropriate penalty, but it had to be a substantial one in view of the nature of the offence, the Judge said. Mr G. R. Lascelles, for the defendant, had submitted in mitigation of penalty that the jury, in finding the defendant not guilty on the other four charges, had found he was not in possession of the drug. He was not a party to the drugs being on the premises. Mr Lascelles referred to the defendant's stable character and excellent work record, and said there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant played any significant role in major offending under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He said that the defendant was highly unlikely to be involved in any further trouble, and submitted that a monetary penalty should be imposed.

More court news Page 11