Teacher caught out with own tape, court told

Former teacher David Norman Arthur was "hoist with his own petard" when he filmed young people smoking P at his home, the prosecution in the High Court at Auckland maintained yesterday.

In his closing address, Mathew Downs told the jury that the videotape, which was played to the jury, helped corroborate the evidence of four young people, aged 17 and 18, who attended a party at Arthur's Glen Eden home in June last year.

Mr Downs said Arthur, who was a teacher at Takapuna Grammar School at the time, caught himself out when he filmed the young people using P in his bedroom.

Arthur, aged 48, denies supplying methamphetamine.

A charge against him of attempting to dissuade one of the witnesses from giving evidence by threats was withdrawn yesterday.

That charge is now faced alone by Arthur's long-time friend David Ashley Parker, a 39-year-old Huia truck driver.

Defence lawyer Rose Thomson said Parker had been concerned about untrue allegations about Arthur and phoned the witness to persuade him to tell the truth in court.

Arthur's lawyer, Paul Dacre, maintained that his client was the victim of a set-up.

But Mr Downs said the suggestion was utterly misplaced; it was not a set-up if Arthur was simply caught out by his own offending.

The four young people, William Barling, Alexandre (Sasha) Kouznetsov, Cara Gane and former Queer Nation presenter Jonathan Marshall, testified that Arthur gave them P at the party.

Mr Downs said the defence had branded them liars.

The jury had to decide whether they had told a wicked pack of lies or, as the Crown contended, their claim that Arthur supplied them with P was completely and utterly true.

Arthur told the jury that when he walked into his bedroom three of the teenagers were already smoking P and Mr Marshall later joined them.

Arthur said he did not know where the drug came from.

He said he told the group they should not be smoking P, but due to the warmth of their greeting and the fact that he did not want to upset his flatmates who were holding the party, he did not tell them to leave.

Indeed, he joined in the fun, though he did not smoke, and filmed part of the proceedings.

Some weeks later Mr Barling and Mr Kouznetsov took the tape from Arthur's home without his permission after being pressured by a Sunday Star-Times reporter, Amie Richardson, an associate of Mr Marshall, the court has heard.

There was evidence that the journalist threatened to print the teenagers' names and to write a false story about sex for drugs if she did not get co-operation.

The tape, which formed the basis of a front-page story in the Sunday Star-Times, was later handed to the police by the paper.

Mr Downs said there had been pressure by the journalist, who acted improperly, criminally and dishonestly, but the jury should not let that cloud the issue.

The jury might have found Mr Marshall a disagreeable, unscrupulous character who used his friends and was less than candid with them about his relationship with the reporter.

Mr Downs said a motive for Arthur's supplying methamphetamine might be that he liked to surround himself with young people and he supplied the drug free to fraternise and socialise with them because he "wanted to feel wanted".

He said there was a pattern of Arthur supplying methamphetamine on other occasions.

But Mr Dacre said that the only pattern was a pattern of lies told by the young people, who found themselves "between a rock and a hard place".

He said the drug was brought to the house by one of the young people, probably not Mr Marshall.

Mr Marshall was later in touch with a reporter who wanted the videotape.

The others were not just under a little bit of pressure to co-operate, Mr Dacre said. They were "under the blow torch".

The three were long-time friends who could not be expected to blame each other. In addition, it did not suit Mr Marshall - who wanted a story about a schoolteacher - to blame any of the others.

Mr Dacre told the jury that the young people "took the line of least resistance" and put the blame for supplying the drugs on Arthur.

What else could they do, he asked.

After the party Mr Marshall said he wanted to get back at Arthur.

Mr Downs suggested that was because Arthur had provided him with bad P, which put him in hospital.

But Mr Dacre said the reason Mr Marshall wanted to get back at Arthur was not known.

However, Mr Marshall had a track record and showed a pattern of behaviour towards people he did not like.

Mr Dacre scoffed at suggestions that his client, on a modest teacher's wage, could afford the $2000 to $2500 drugs he allegedly supplied over a period of time.

He dismissed the suggestion as a huge amount to pay for good fellowship.

Mr Dacre said there was nothing on the videotape to suggest Arthur supplied or smoked P.

The trial continues today, when Justice John Priestley will sum up.