Sighs greet drug sentences

Press, 20 December 1986, Page 4

Sighs greet drug sentences

Sighs of relief came from the public gallery in the High Court yesterday from friends of four men sentenced for involvement in the home manufacture of heroin — an offence with a maximum term of life imprisonment The four men had been found by the police making homebake heroin in the home of one of the men on February’ 17. Mr Justice Williamson, who heard defence counsels submissions of the minuscule amount of the drug involved, and held that they were not in the category’ of commercial dealers, imposed sentences from 2i/ 2 years imprisonment to nine months periodic detention.

The accused were Stephen Frank Coward, aged 35, a sickness beneficiary (Mr D. C. Fitzgibbon), Eru Lucien Hall, aged 35, a car wrecker (Mr M. J. Glue), Christopher James Mead, aged 20, unemployed (Mr E. Bedo), and Wayne George Hammond, aged 32, unemployed (Mr P. N. Dyhrberg). They were found guilty by a jury on joint charges of manufacturing heroin. They had been alternatively charged w’ith manufacturing morphine. Yesterday, Coward and Hall were each jailed for 21/2 years.

These terms are concurrent with prison terms of 18 months which each is at present serving for other drug offences, on which they were convicted in August and September.

Mead was jailed for nine months, and was given a concurrent prison sentence of six months on a charge, to which he had pleaded guilty, of using a doctor’s prescription form to obtain 80 analgesic tablets. Hammond was ordered to do nine months periodic detention. All four defence counsel, in submissions yesterday, emphasised the very small amount of the drug made, and that this was to supply only those involved. Mr Bedo submitted that the quantity of heroin manufactured was minuscule.

The whole operation had all the marks of amateurism. The ramshackle nature of the laboratory did not indicate any sort of professionalism or smooth operation. Mr Dyhrberg said Hammond’s involvement had been only in allowing his premises to be used for manufacturing. The quantity being made was for home consumption. Hammond had made considerable progress in overcoming his habituation for drugs. Mr Fitzgibbon said Coward had had a history of drug addiction for 17 to 18 years. His was a sad history and it was a tragedy he had descended to this level.

Coward had stated he called at Hammond’s house to score some drug.

The process was under way when he called.

A minuscule amount was involved, recovered from a spoon. There was no evidence of any manufacturing of the drug for supply to others. Hammond had attended meetings to overcome his drug addiction, and already was motivated towards this end.

Mr Glue, in what he submitted was a straightout plea for leniency for Hall, sought a concurrent prison sentence with the term Hall was serving at present.

He intended to make a genuine effort on his release from prison to overcome his addiction, and realised he must do that if he was going to stay alive much longer. Hall’s visits to chemists’

shops qualified him as a partner in the manufacturing, but he had stated all he wanted was a taste of the drug.

Hall was not the mastermind behind the manufacturing, and did not have the necessary knowhow for this rather complicated procedure. The production of heroin was not the purpose of the operation. The principal purpose was to manfacture morphine.

An infinitesimal trace of drug was found. The operation was small in scale, and the drug was intended for home use.

Mr C. A. McVeigh, w’ho appeared with. Mr T. J. Allan for the Crown said the Crown did not accept that the manufacturing process was for home use.

The police found 1100 tablets of a drug, which could produce 6.5 grams of morphine, and this could be converted to heroin.

Morphine could sell for $2500 a gram. The quantity of burnt drug packets indicated that the operation had been going on “for a bit longer than one homebake.”

Mr McVeigh also voiced concern that Coward and Hall w’ere on bail on this charge when they committed other drug of-

fences, for which they had been sentenced. His Honour said he accepted that the four accused were drug addicts, but were not proved to be in the category of commercial dealers.

Their prime motivation w’as to make drug for their own use and perhaps make some money to help them purchase materials. “It was a far cry from what we hear about importations of drugs on a large scale.”

His Honour said that, since 1978, the maximum sentence for manufacturing heroin had been life imprisonment.

The law provided that the personal circumstances of drug addicts were less important than the need to make it clear to offenders that the community did not want the evils of drug addiction. His Honour said Coward and Hall were aged 35 and were working on this process with Mead, who was 15 years younger. The older men were still in the business of making and taking drugs in spite of past warnings and sentences over the years.

The homebake process that the men set up was not a spur-of-the-moment venture.

A lot of planning, know-

ledge, laboratory equipment and chemicals, and raw materials were needed.

The degree of organisation and planning added to the offence.

His Honour said he took into account that the accused were addicted to drugs; and the time they had waited for trial on the charges. He told Hammond that he would be sentenced on the basis of his having permitted his premises to be used, rather than that he had any direct part in manufacturing heroin. Hammond’s wife also was an addict and they had a daughter aged 15 months.

One wondered what chance the child had with both parents drug addicts, unless they did something about it, his Honour said. Hammond’s young child

was a factor in the lenient sentence, which his Honour said he would impose, and would be Hammond’s last chance.

His Honour told Mead his history affirmed the connection between can-nabis-taking and harddrug taking. This was his first offence of the kind, and he had strong family support and had resolved to conquer his addiction.