Crippled drug dealer jailed

Press, 11 April 1979, Page 5

Crippled drug dealer jailed

A claim that the use of; cannabis provided some re-' lief for a very rare form of; creeping spastic paralysis i had been made by a doctor. • counsel for a man appearing' on drug charges said in the: Supreme Court yesterday. William Douglas Oldham,. aged 31, a company manager, I was jailed for a year by Mri Justice Roper on charges of having cannabis resin (hash-1 iish) for supply and cultivat-j ling cannabis at his home in Tancred Street, Linwood. j Last week a jury found) Oldham guilty of both of-1 fences which were commit-) ted on October 17, 1978. ]

Evidence was given that detectives of the drug squad raided Oldham’s flat where they found a total of 32.90 grams of hashish hidden in a jewellery box and in two jars buried in the garden and hidden in the hedge. Cannabis plants were growing in the back garden. Mr G. M. Brodie, for Oldham, said that the prisoner’s involvement with drugs stemmed from his health

problems and not from any desire to make money. Oldham suffered from an extremely rare disease, a form of spastic paralysis which only affected two families in New Zealand. There was no known treatment for the complaint, which resulted in a very depressive creeping form of paralysis.

His Honour: Knowing all that why does he get involved in this sort of activity? I have the greatest sympathy for your client "because of his medical problem.

Mr Brodie said that until 30 years ago cannabis had been freely used in the treatment of certain diseases and Oldham found that the use of the drug gave him some relief.

His Honour: I can accept that and if this had been a case of cannabis for his own use it would have been an entirely different matter. Mr Brodie said that Oldham claimed that he had never supplied the drug to anybody. It did not take Miss Wirepa (Oldham’s de facto wife) long to supply drugs to persons who she thought were friends of Oldham, his Honour said.

Mr Brodie replied that Old' ham had not been present at the lime and had nothing to do with the transaction. One doctor had recommended that Oldham should apply for a dispensation to be able to use cannabis. Unfortunately he had not taken that step. The recom-

mendation had been made at I the time his wife left him and he was $9OOO in debt. It might be that he did not act on that advice because) of his personality. A prison sentence would! be particularly cruel for Old-' ham because of his physical; condition, and he would not: be able to get the treatment' he . was receiving from al doctor. Neither his mother nor: father had anything to do) with Oldham in recent; years. He had custody of his) two children, aged five and) seven, after their mother! I deserted them and went to) | live in Auckland. There was) | nobody apart from Miss Wi-i repa to look after them. Despite the physical handicap caused by his medical condition Oldham had built up a fairly successful small advertising business. He had just com-1 pleted the purchase of a! home and if he went tol prison he would lose it. I Oldham suffered from a severe personality disorder which was not of his own making. He was capable of rehabilitating himself as had been shown by his curbing the string of offences of his younger days, Mr Brodie said. His Honour said that Oldham had many convictions for a variety of offences over many years. In 1970 he was jailed for six months for forgery and possession of narcotics, and in 1975 he was jailed for a year on a charge of possession of narcotics for supply.

I “It has been said by couni sei and the probation officer that a prison sentence would : destroy you because it' ;would ruin your business, I ; affect your association with i Miss Wirepa. adversely! iaffect your children, would’ I make no impression on you I and because of your grave ) physical disability was inappropriate,” his Honour isaid. “I can forgive you your town drug habit because it ! affords you some relief for I your condition but we’re no!, 'dealing with that aspect ■here. This is a case of possession for supply io others. ! “I note that in 1975 Mr i Justice Casey when sentenci ing you said he would im-i pose a shorter term than! really appropriate because of; your disability. You do not! seem to have learned from | that and have continued to’ ) offend. Now you expect im-j Imunity from a prison be-; cause of your personal cir-: | cumstances,” said his I Honour. “Sentencing in ths case; posed a real problem to the! Court. I could shrink from I doing what I see as my duty; but I will not do so. You are a person who cannot afford to reoffend. Your put your-' self in this position and I j am not going to extricate] you. 1 fear you must face) the consequences,” his) Honour said. He would 'take into' account that the quantity of! the drug was not great al-) though it was six times) more than the prescribed] limit for the presumption of) possession for supply.