Not-guilty verdict on drug charge

Press, 9 March 1984, Page 13

Not-guilty verdict on drug charge

A man, whose wife had threatened to leave him if he did not destroy the cannabis plants that he was growing, was found not guilty of possession of cannabis for supply by a District Court jury yesterday. James Russ Harris, aged 21, a salesman, had been charged with possessing a total of 884 g of cannabis.

He had previously pleaded guilty to charges of cultivating cannabis and possessing pipes to smoke cannabis. He was sentenced on these charges by Judge Fraser at the end of the trial.

Harris was fined $4OO for cultivating cannabis and $lOO for possessing pipes for smoking cannabis. He was ordered to pay $2O court costs on each charge.

Constable M. J. Davis told the Court he went with a group of policemen on December 9, 1983, to execute a search warrant at 130 Union Street, New Brighton. No-one was home. Six cannabis plants were found growing at the rear of the section. Another 24 were found in a large, windowless shed with a padlocked door. The shed roof was made of a clear plastic. Entry was gained to the house through an insecure window.

A large urn containing cannabis leaf was found in the lounge. A small bowl containing cannabis leaf, two pipes, used for smoking cannabis and an ashtray with several butts of can-

nabis cigarettes were found in a bedroom.

A paper bag containing dried cannabis was found in a kitchen cupboard. The total weight of cannabis found at the address was 884 g. Harris was asked to return home from his work and he was questioned by Constable Davis. He freely admitted to growing the plants but said he had not intended to sell any. He denied knowing of the cannabis found in the kitchen and plastic bags found in the shed. When asked why he had been growing so many plants, Harris said that he had been experimenting. He did not know how many seeds he had planted but was surprised at the number of seeds that grew. The plants had been growing for two or three months. The defendant told Constable Davis that he had planned to destroy the plants that week-end. His wife did not like the cannabis being on the property, and had threatened to leave. When cross-examined by defence counsel Mr W. G. G. A. Young, a Department of Scientific and Industrial Research analyst, Miss Paula Scholes, agreed that once the leaves of the plants had been dried and the stalks discarded only 40g of cannabis would have been available for smoking. The plants had originally weighed 850 g. In his evidence, Harris said that at no time had he sold, or intended to sell, any

of the cannabis. He had either smoked it on his own or with a few friends. His wife had never smoked cannabis.

He did not know about the cannabis in the kitchen because it was in a cupboard that was too high to see into, without standing on a stool. The cupboard was not used. Mrs Tina Harris told the court that she and her husband had many arguments over the cannabis. She finally threatened to leave him unless the cannabis was destroyed. He had agreed to destroy the cannabis.

Cannabis had been smoked in the house about twice a week and no more than three people had ever smoked it at one time. She was not aware of any of the cannabis being sold. In his address to the jury, the Crown prosecutor, Mr A. M. Mclntosh, said the core issue of the case was for what purpose did the defendant have such a large amount of cannabis. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the defendant needed to possess only 28g to be presumed of supplying cannabis, unless he could prove otherwise. Mr Young told the jury the amount of cannabis that could be smoked was relevant. If the jury accepted the defendant did not know of the cannabis in the kitchen cupboard then 40g from the plants and the small amount found inside would be consistent with someone possessing cannabis for their own use and sharing with friends.