Two face preliminary hearing on a charge of importing heroin into N.Z.

Press, 19 June 1986, Page 4

Two face preliminary hearing on a charge of importing heroin into N.Z.

Two men faced a preliminary hearing in the District Court yesterday on a charge alleging that, with three others, they were involved in the importation of heroin from Thailand last February. The men, Robin Alfred Anderson, aged 33, a supervisor (Mr G. E. Langham) and Gary Francis Watson, aged 26, a cook (Mr E. Bedo), are jointly charged with importing the drug, through Auckland airport, on February 2. The three others named in the charge admitted involvement. One, a detective, is serving a 16-year prison sentence for heroin importation and possession for supply and a woman is serving 10 years for importing heroin. They are named as prosecution witnesses. Yesterday, before the scheduled preliminary hearing, Norman Richard Barker, aged 32, a psychiatric nurse (Mr D. I. Jones) pleaded guilty before Judge Fraser to the joint charge of importing the drug, and to possessing it for supply. He was committed to the High Court for sentence on July 4. The preliminary hearing against Anderson and Watson, heard before Messrs J. B. Andersen and R. C. Holland, will continue today. . Both defence counsel sought and obtained interim suppression, for the preliminary hearing, of the contents of taperecorded conversations made in the flat in Geraldine Street, and of statements made to the police by the defendants. Mr D. J. L. Saunders, outlining the police’s case, said that between October and December last year, the police alleged, a plan was devised whereby Watson and another man would fly to Thailand and purchase a „ quantity of heroin, which would be

handed to Anderson and his travelling associate, Miss Dale Frances Mulvihill. The plan then was for her to bring the drug into New Zealand, strapped to her body, and be met at Auckland airport by her boyfriend, Wayne Haussmann. Mr Saunders said the plan was carried out. As a result of information received by the police an application was made to the High Court for a warrant to place electronic surveillance equipment into a flat in Geraldine Street, Christchurch. The equipment was installed in the flat, occupied by Haussmann, Mulvihill, and Anderson, in February. Information indicated that apparently five persons had regular access to the flat, including Wilson who lived and worked at Hanmer Springs, but travelled to Christchurch at week-ends and spent time with the two others at the flat. The police executed a search warrant on the flat on March 3 and a small quantity of heroin was found. A much larger quantity of the drug was found at another city address, where Haussmann’s car was parked. The five persons allegedly involved were interviewed, and all made statements. Of the five persons, Anderson and Barker were the only ones remaining to face court hearings, Mr Saunders said. He said the police alleged that Watson travelled with Barker to Thailand, and was a party to the purchase of heroin, and knew that the plan was for the drug to be brought to New Zealand by Miss Mulvihill. He knew that it would be available for sale and for his own use should the occasion arise, it was claimed. I Mr Saunders said Anderson was one of the

flatmates, and it was contended he had a more intimate knowledge of the business plans that Haussmann and Barker had devised for the use of the heroin. Anderson had taken time off work, travelled to Thailand with Miss Mulvihill, accompanied her throughout, and returned with her and saw her through customs in Auckland, before returned to Christchurch, the police alleged. Mr Saunders said it was contended that Anderson was actively involved in the plan throughout. A travel manageress, Prudence Jeanette Mills, gave evidence of Anderson making bookings last October for a package holiday for himself and Dale Mulvihill, to the East, including Singapore and Thailand. The witness detailed the bookings made for travel and stay in these countries, from departure from Auckland for Singapore on January 17 to departure from Thailand for Sydney on January 31, and thence Sydney to Auckland on February 2. After an initial deposit of $2OO, Anderson paid the balance of $5386 on January 8. In mld-February Anderson called in regard to a refund application for, the flight from Auckland to Christchurch, not used by Miss Mulvihill. Cross-examined, the witness agreed that when Anderson returned to Christchurch and called at her office he was quite talkative about the places he had seen, and his travels generally in the area. He was not specific about any sight-seeing in particular, but had not been secretive. Diane Elizabeth Richardson, manageress and part-owner of Hanmer Lodge, said Watson had been employed there as a cook, earning about $3OO

a week. Late last year Watson had asked for leave, saying he had been offered an expenses-paid trip to Australia and it was too good an opportunity to miss. The holiday was for a period in January, returning in February. He did not mention anything else about his planned trip. After his return he said he had had a fantastic time, and had stayed at the Cross in Sydney. Colin Patton Lock, a factory manager at Sullivan Plastics, said Anderson had been employed as a supervisor with the firm, and had asked late last year for leave in January to holiday in Australia. He discussed currency and showed an interest in the United States dollar, and its movement in relation to the New Zealand dollar. The company had facilities for monitoring the fluctuations in international currencies. A fortnight’s leave from January 17 was arranged. Anderson then sought a later date to return. The witness took an airline timetable from his drawer and Anderson told him he was not now going to Australia, but was going up north with some friends as he could not afford to go overseas. Mr Lock said he became aware in March that Anderson was facing a charge in court. Anderson telephoned him to say what had happened, and said his involvement was by association, and that he had not taken an active part in the proceedings. Mr Lock said he told Anderson of his disappointment that Anderson had lied to him about going overseas. Anderson said he did go up north with friends. He had not told anybody. about his travel plans in case there was trouble

with bringing the stuff back in. Anderson also said he had had a great time up there, and that as soon as he could afford it he would go back there again. The witness did not know where Anderson meant by "there.” Anderson told him he believed the police’s case might not be all that strong. His reason for this was that he was on bail, and with fairly liberal reporting conditions. He also said he would be able to account for all transactions, and that his trip had been paid for by a superannuation cheque from a previous employer. Mr Lock said he asked Anderson that if he was involved with people he lived with, why did he not get out. Anderson said he had been lodking for somewhere else to live for two months, but had not found anywhere. Anderson said he thought he might get five to 10 years but that was more because of his association with others in the case than anything he himself had done. To Mr Langham, Mr Lock said he could not be sure Anderson had said he would get five to ten years, as opposed to four to five years. Anderson had told him he stood to gain nothing financially from the whole deal. The witness said Anderson also had expressed his concern about taking his children to the flat as he considered it was not a suitable environment. Mr Lock agreed that, after his dismissal from the company Anderson had complained to the Labour Department about short-payment. Mr Langham: Is the result of that decision going to involve the company in paying money to Anderson? Witness: Correct.