Dope deal damage mortifies

A former teacher aide who admitted supplying cannabis to two juveniles was mortified by what he had done and the devastating effect his actions had had on his wife, counsel David James told Judge Greg Davis in the Kaitaia District Court last week.

Forty-five-year-old Tuaine Koe Raru, who had been convicted at an earlier appearance on two counts of supplying cannabis, one of offering to supply it and one of cultivating it, was sentenced to four months' community detention (to be served in Otara) and 12 months' supervision.

Mr James told the court that his client's offending represented a remarkable lapse of common sense. He had not made a habit of supplying young people with cannabis, and this offending had done a lot of damage to his standing in the community.

He had had to observe the devastating effect the offending had had on his wife. That had been mortifying to him and to his sense of self-worth. Effectively he had lost all opportunities in his community.

"I have observed his contrition," Mr James said.

"He is staggered by what he has done. There was nothing in it for him; it was a situation where he took what he saw as the lesser of two evils."

According to the summary of facts Raru was last year given responsibility of serving as a role model and mentor to a 12-year-old pupil (Victim 1) at the Kaitaia school where he was employed as a teacher aide. They would text each other outside school hours and go on outings.

Late last year the defendant took Victim 1 and a 13-year-old fellow pupil (Victim 2) to the beach at Ahipara for the day. On the way home he stopped at an address in Kaitaia to buy a cannabis 'tinnie,' the boys giving him $15 to make the $20 purchase.

(Mr James objected to that, saying Raru had gone to a relative's home, not a 'tinnie house.' He believed the cannabis had been his client's, as opposed to being bought. The Crown argued that that boys had said they gave the defendant $20 and he gave them the tinnie.

(Judge Davis noted that the defendant had pleaded guilty to the summary of facts he was reading from, and Mr James, who said his client had allowed himself to be "set up," declined the offer to delay sentencing so evidence could be called, Judge Davis saying that whatever the circumstances the defendant had given the boys a quantity of cannabis wrapped in tin foil).

Meanwhile text data obtained by the police showed that Raru had offered to supply cannabis to Victim 1. Police searched the defendant's address on January 10, seizing cannabis paraphernalia and three small plants that were growing in a pot.

Raru told police he had not bought cannabis for or supplied it to either boy after the trip to Ahipara. He did admit texting Victim 1 about supplying him with cannabis, and arranged to meet him, although he had had no intention of doing so. He did not give him cannabis when they met.

Text messages to Victim 1 regarding 'plants' referred to tomato plants he was growing at home, and the police would not find any cannabis plants at his address.

The Crown prosecutor told the court that the blame for Raru's offending could not attach to a 12-year-old boy who was having difficulties and needed guidance. Victim 1 had said at interview that if his mother had not found a text message he would have had another tinnie "by now."

Judge Davis said the most aggravating feature of the offending was that Raru had been in a position of trust. Rather than guiding a boy who had troubles he had supplied him and a friend with cannabis.

"However you might have been manipulated, the fact is that you were the adult," he said.

"A suite of options were available to you, but you pandered to their demands and enabled or encouraged their desires.

"I am satisfied that cannabis was not supplied for commercial gain, but these are most unusual circumstances."

He noted that Raru had lost or resigned from his job (Mr James said his client and his wife were now living and working as cleaners in Auckland). Raru had last appeared in court, on drug charges, 27 years earlier.

Judger Davis added that he could deal with the charges without jailing the defendant, but a clear message had to be sent that supplying young people with cannabis would be treated particularly seriously.