Corporal Richard Graham served in the New Zealand Defence Force in a sensitive specialist intelligence role. Photo / Supplied
An air force spy who stole operationally sensitive material from the New Zealand Defence Force with the help of his security clearance has seen his case turned away by the Court of Appeal.
Corporal Richard Graham was convicted by the High Court on charges of burglary, offering to supply drugs, possession of a psychoactive product and possession of a controlled drug after police appealed a District Court judge's decision to discharge him without conviction.
However, the High Court judge expressed sympathy for the war veteran after he endured a traumatic deployment during his military career.
The man, described by his lawyer Karl Trotter as a secret agent who was "trained in ways to be deceptive", asked the Court of Appeal to overturn Justice Hinton's decision.
The burglaries occurred on three separate occasions in August and September 2016 when Graham used his security clearance to access two buildings, court documents read.
He stole electronics from a store room containing operationally sensitive equipment, and equipment and tools from construction sites at the base.
The value of the items he took was more than $200,000.
During the investigation into the burglaries, police searched Graham's home and a storage unit. Inside 10 BZP pills were found in a safe in Graham's home, while in the storage unit, police located two containers with 391g of NBOME, a psychoactive product with the intended effect of mimicking LSD.
Police also found two cellphones which were seized and examined. On the phones, police identified communications relating to the supply or trading of methamphetamine.
There were about 700 calls to and from the cellphones over a three to four month period.
Following his arrest, Graham co-operated fully with police and all of the stolen items were found.
A police detective also wrote a letter of support for Graham prior to his Waitakere District Court sentencing.
"It's pretty unusual to have a policeman writing a letter of support, not for a discharge without conviction, but nonetheless a letter of support," Justice Anne Hinton said.
Judge Pidwell had accepted Graham's use of methamphetamine was to "self-medicate for stress" suffered as a result of his deployment.
She said the case was an "exceptional combination of facts" and believed Graham, who was now drug-free, should be "given another opportunity to engage appropriately in society".
An affidavit by his commanding officer, whose identity is suppressed, further said Graham had carried out sensitive intelligence work in a hostile overseas environment involving significant personal risk.
There was evidence that of the 14 soldiers who were deployed in Graham's unit many subsequently suffered from adverse health consequences.
Three had approached their superior officer expressing difficulty in re-assimilating back into normal life and significant behavioural changes were noted in five others, court documents read.
Graham himself had a history of significant depressive symptoms and trauma-related symptoms after his "war-based deployment".
Between 2011 and 2015, Graham served in his specialist intelligence role.
Graham's unit and the nature of its operations during that time remains suppressed.
However, the Herald can reveal that prior to that role Graham was deployed to East Timor twice as part of Operation Koru, NZDF information obtained under the Official Information Act shows.
He was first deployed between September 2010 and May 2011 and again between April 2012 and November 2012, NZDF records show.
After his offending at Whenuapai he was dishonourably discharged from the air force, the NZDF confirmed.
He then began work as an apprentice carpenter but feared losing his job if his convictions were upheld, Graham wrote in an affidavit.
The Court of Appeal judges, Justice Kit Toogood, Justice Mark Cooper and Justice Robert Dobson said they were not satisfied a miscarriage had occurred when they turned away Graham's appeal.
Justice Hinton had said: "Convictions in these circumstances are an appropriate way to protect future employers' rights to know about offending, particularly of this nature, and the risks arising from that."
The Court of Appeal, however, did grant Graham's application to adduce further evidence.