Trial on drug charge

Press, 11 July 1989, Page 14

Trial on drug charge

A woman who is alleged to have thrown morphine out of a window when the police arrived to search her house will face trial by jury in the High Court. After a preliminary hering in the District Court yesterday, Dr J. F. Mann and Mrs 0. M. Franks, Justices of the Peace, committed Linda Elizabeth Smith, aged 35, a cleaner, for trial on a charge of possessing morphine, a class-B controlled drug, for supply to others on May 22. Smith, also known as Linda Morgan, was represented by Mr Douglas Taffs. She was remanded on bail pending a date for her trial. Sergeant Robin Scott prosecuted. Prosecution evidence Was given that a police party went to a house occupied by Smith on May 22. An officer outside the house saw a pill bottle thrown from a window. Inside the house, Smith was seen by a detective near a bedroom window. The bottle was retrieved and was found to contain 13 sachets of paper. Wrapped in each square was a small quantity of brown powder. When later analysed by

the D.5.1.R., the total quantity of powder was found to weigh .076 g of which .050 g was morphine. In a handbag detectives found a wallet containing $BOO. A second wallet contained $192, and a further $5.36 in coins. While detectives were at the house a man called, who was known by the police to be an intravenous user of drugs. The man was searched and found to carry $lOO. Detective Peter Boyd said home bake morphine was usually sold in sachets, or “packets,” for $lOO each. Cross-examined, the detective said the man told him he had called at the house to visit. Detective Bernard O’Fagan said that, when questioned, Smith said she had thrown the bottle from a window. She said she did not know how many sachets it contained. She told the detective she was just looking after it for a friend. She did not use it. Detective O’Fagan said he later tipped the contents of the 13 sachets into a plastic bag, in pre : paration for its being sent to the D.S.I.R. for analysis. Cross-examined, Detec-

tive O’Fagan was asked if there was any way of knowing what the contents of each individual sachet had been. He said he could make a “very logical estimate,” but there was certainly no way he could know 100 per cent how much each sachet contained. Detective O’Fagan said Smith told him the $BOO found in one wallet in her handbag was her brother’s. Her brother was not spoken to about the money. The detective was asked whether, even on the assumption that all 13 sachets contained equal amounts of morphine, a very low-strength mixture was involved. He agreed, saying the total weight was less than he would have expected from 13 sachets. Mr Taffs submitted at the completion of the police’s case that there was insufficient evidence to commit Smith for trial. He said the total amount of the drug alleged to have been in Smith’s possession was below the amount at which, in law, the drug was presumed to be for supply to others unless the defendant could satisfy the Court otherwise. Mr Taffs said he based much of his submission on

what he termed the extensive handling of the exhibits. He elaborated on matters relating to this, and said that once the contents of the sachets had been tipped into one bag, before analysis, there was no way of knowing what each sachet contained, or whether each contained a drug or substance at all. There was no indication of what percentage of morphine, if any, was in any particular sachet. Mr Taffs said the police case depended on the fact that there were 13 individual sachets containing the drug. However, a detective had expressed surprise at the small amount of morphine found. Counsel submitted the police case should fail because of the police’s “interference” with any proof of the contents of the sachets. A jury was barred from speculating. No reason had been given by the detective as to why the contents of the sachets were mixed together, instead of being kept separate for analysis. Mr Taffs also referred to apparent discrepancies in the labelling of the samples to be sent for analysis, in the defendant’s names.