Mystery billionaire 'a functioning pothead'

By JOSIE CLARKE

The American billionaire who escaped conviction for importing drugs into New Zealand is well-known in his own country as a heavy cannabis user.

In the High Court at Auckland yesterday, Herald lawyer Bruce Gray said the American business magazine Fortune described the billionaire as a "functioning pothead" in 1995 - five years before he appeared in the Otahuhu District Court to admit importing more than 100g of cannabis into New Zealand.

Judge David Harvey discharged him without conviction on January 7 with his name permanently suppressed to keep his record clear.

The Herald took the case back to court yesterday for a review of the decision before Justice Potter and Justice Nicholson - the latest move in the newspaper's lengthy battle to overturn the name suppression and highlight the unusual discharge.

Mr Gray said Judge Harvey did not know on January 7 that the billionaire's support for a campaign to legalise marijuana had been widely reported in United States newspapers. Those reports, and the "functioning pothead" description, showed the man already had a reputation in the American business community as a habitual and heavy cannabis user.

A suppression order made in New Zealand could not protect his reputation in the United States, and made the court "look a little bit silly."

Mr Gray said the order should not stand because overseas newspapers had published the man's name and details of his New Zealand court appearance, and New Zealanders had access to the information through the Internet.

Judge Harvey had no legal basis for ordering name suppression, which was not usually granted for such serious offences. The billionaire seemed to have "purchased" his name suppression by making a $53,000 donation to Auckland's Odyssey House drug rehabilitation centre.

The billionaire's lawyer, Marie Dyhrberg, suggested the case go back before Judge Harvey if there were further factors for him to consider.

But Justice Nicholson said he "recoiled" at the suggestion. Provided he and Justice Potter had access to the same information as Judge Harvey, they were equally able to decide the matter themselves.

Ms Dyhrberg argued that the Herald should have exercised its right to oppose the name suppression when Judge Harvey granted it on January 7.

Justice Potter asked if that meant the media had to "run a private detective service in order to track down what is happening, and be there or else."

Ms Dyhrberg is expected to complete her submissions today.

If the High Court lifts name suppression, the Herald will name the man.