FIGHT TO NAME DRUG IMPORTER

The Herald may be facing a long and costly legal battle in its fight
to name a drug-smuggling American billionaire.

The Herald has applied to the Otahuhu District Court to overturn a
name suppression order granted to the man, who escaped without a
conviction after admitting three charges of bringing more than 100g of
cannabis resin and leaf in to the country.

But legal wrangles have slowed the hearing of the case. The man's
lawyer, Marie Dyhrberg, is opposing the Herald's challenge and the
paper may be forced to go to the High Court today to get its case heard.

Last night, the row took a new turn when a French teenager claimed he
was being deported after being convicted of a lesser drug offence by
the same judge who discharged the billionaire.

Ghislain Couston, a 19-year-old student, told NZPA that he was fined
$350 after appearing before Judge David Harvey in Otahuhu court. He
was convicted of importing 4g of hashish.

"It seems if you have money in this country you can get away with
this," he said.

The Immigration Service gave Couston seven days to leave the country,
the same time limit it imposed on the billionaire.

The differences in the sentences concerns Justice Minister Phil Goff,
who has already ordered an investigation into the sentencing of drug
smugglers.

Mr Goff said that if the student's claims were true, the differences
in the cases would be hard to explain "other than in terms of the
relative wealth and social position of the individuals."

The Customs Minister, Phillida Bunkle, entered the debate yesterday,
saying the judge's decision to discharge the tycoon without conviction
on drug-importing charges could open the floodgates to drug smuggling.

She said the court decision could make Customs' task as the frontline
defence against drugs more difficult.

The case was the largest cannabis importation to be the subject of a
section 19 discharge on record, and the largest intercepted at a New
Zealand airport in the past year.

Ms Bunkle said that Customs officials had asked police to oppose the
man's application for a discharge without conviction when he appeared
in court.

"My greatest concern and that of the Customs Service staff is that New
Zealand may now be perceived as an easy-beat for people wanting to
bring illegal drugs into this country."

Inspector Jim Searle, Counties Manukau acting district manager, said
the police prosecutor handling the case put Customs' views to the
court in writing. Police did not oppose the submission by the man's
lawyer, but made sure the judge had all the relevant facts.

Ms Bunkle said news of the man's discharge on drug offences had been
reported widely around the world, and New Zealand's border protection
image had been harmed by this inconsistent response.

A spokeswoman for the billionaire's company said he had not made any
comment to his company about the charges. She refused to say if he had
left New Zealand or returned to his own country.

The Immigration Service issued him with a limited permit to allow him
to face his charges in court. That permit expires at midnight tonight.

Immigration Service spokesman Ian Smith said the man was entitled to
apply to re-enter the country.

He said the man did not have to physically present himself to
immigration officials when he left, but the service would know from
its computer system whether he had gone.

The possibility of the Herald's facing significant delays in getting
its application to name the man heard arises because questions have
been raised about whether the court in Otahuhu has the jurisdiction to
deal with it.

Marie Dyhrberb says the newspaper does not have the right to apply to
overturn the order.

Media law expert Professor John Burrows said the Herald application
raised an interesting question about jurisdiction.

He said a similar application by several media organisations against a
gagging writ in the case of cancer sufferer Liam Williams-Holloway had
raised similar questions.

The application was dismissed in the Family Court, a division of the
District Court, but that decision was overturned by the High Court.

Herald editor Stephen Davis said he believed the case raised an
important issue and the court needed to hear it. "We will continue
fighting to name this man because we think the principle of open
justice is of overwhelming importance."