US TYCOON COULD HAVE BEEN JAILED

Law Provides 14 Years

An American billionaire who walked away from three charges of drug
importation could have been imprisoned for 14 years under New Zealand law.

The billionaire, 66, admitted three charges of importing drugs after he was
caught with 56g of hashish, a concentrated class B cannabis derivative, and
47g of cannabis as he entered the country to watch the America's Cup yacht
racing.

New Zealand law states that the importation of more than 5g of cannabis
resin constitutes possession for supply and attracts a minimum sentence of
14 years imprisonment.

However, the man was discharged without conviction and was granted name
suppression when he appeared in the Otahuhu District Court last Friday. The
name suppression was rendered largely ineffective after the man's name
appeared in newspapers in his home town and on several Internet sites.

The Internet also contains several references to the Cleveland-based
insurance tycoon, who heads a company with sales of almost NZ$10 billion a
year. He is a philanthropist who has donated several million dollars to the
arts, and to a group called Americans for Medical Rights, the sponsors of
several state ballot initiatives permitting the medical use of marijuana.

He has been described as one of America's foremost boardroom mavericks, an
innovative visionary and risk-taker who built his company from 100 to
14,000 employees in 30 years.

The University of Canterbury's Professor John Burrows, a media law expert,
said yesterday that, from his reading of brief summaries of the case, there
must be some "rather special" circumstances underlying the judge's
decision. "From the brief summaries I have read, it certainly seems very
unusual, both in terms of the name suppression and the discharge."

Professor Burrows said a similar case occurred when a well known public
figure was granted name suppression in 1994 on fraud charges related to
taxi chits.

Marie Dyhrberg, who as the lawyer for the American businessman has stoutly
defended the suppression, slammed the suppression in the 1994 case as
president of the Criminal Bar Association.

"You might see it as that way (contradictory), but I am not about to debate
the merits of this case.

"The 1994 case was a question of honesty and a person going into a position
where honesty was relevant," she said.

Ms Dyhrberg heads a group of prominent lawyers calling for automatic name
suppression until conviction. However, in the 1994 case she believed
suppression had been used wrongly.

The New Zealand Herald newspaper has applied to the courts to have
suppression overturned in the latest case. Editor Stephen Davis said there
were suspicions the man was discharged without conviction because he was
wealthy.

"The suspicions are in this case that the man's wealth and his ability to
hire a good lawyer contributed substantially towards his name being
suppressed and no conviction being entered in circumstances where other
people have been treated differently," Mr Davis said.

The newspaper's application was yesterday opposed by counsel acting for the
businessman.

Judge Stan Thorburn sought further detail after the man's lawyer questioned
the district court's jurisdiction in hearing the matter. The Herald's right
to make the application was also challenged.

The Herald will today ask the court to transfer the matter to the High
Court for a hearing.

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party said last tonight the controversy
highlighted the need for the Government to admit that the law was in
disrepute.

The party said: "There is no justice when the rich walk free, where the
poor would be jailed."