Lawyer, Mary Tuilotolava closing address: 22 November 2006, Auckland High Court.

CLOSING ADDRESS FOR CAROLINE RANGIATA AROH

May it please Your Honour, Madam Foreman Ladies&Gentlemen of the Jury

A THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF THE CASE FOR DEFENCE

Caroline Aroh's defence to this ONE CHARGE OF EXPORTATION is simply this - She did not at any stage engage in any conduct KNOWINGLY exporting from NZ anything remotely resembling illicit drugs let alone a classA controlled drug.

The case against CA is not clear cut for the Crown. But this is NOT because we dispute any of real facts stated eg that CA wrote the note that is exhibit 69, that she travelled to Brisbane and stayed at the address there, that she emailed that she travelled to Sydney and from there she returned to NZ.

No MJ, CA does not see to resile from those facts. Nevertheless I still say to you that this case is neverthe less NOT a clear cut case because the inferences that The Crown is relying on the prove its allegation against CA are NOT REASONABLE INFERENCES.

I SAY MJ THAT THE CROWN IS ASKING YOU TO tap into you sense of PREJUDICE against this and perhaps his wife because they are a couple. As such the Crown are asking you to assume certain facts, as you would of a STEROTYPED HUSBAND AND WIFE TEAM that CA knew of her husbands every thought, his every plan, his every conversation and EITHER acquiesce with these thoughs and plans OR in fact had a majou part to play in the actual planning and carrying out what seems to be a sophisticated drug trafficking business.

BUT what is the evidence MJ?

I agree with Ms Gordon when she told that circumstantial evidence can paint a very strong picture of what is the case. But that would be largely dependant on whether the facts that have been put up to you as proved, are not capable of drawing more than one logical conclusion.

Ms Gordon had carefully highlighted for you some of the relevant facts and had spoke to you about how you draw these inferences. So what I am going to do MJ is something similar. Highlight certain facts which I will then invite you to draw an inference from. Before I do that I just want to remind you agin of certain important legal concepts which I would urge that you to keep in mind during the whole time of your decision making discussions as to which facts you accept or dont accept.

BURDEN OF PROOF:

CA has not given any direct evidence nor called any evidence in her trial. You must be clear MJ that as an accused person, she is quite entitled to just sit back and say to the Crown, you have accused me, let us see the quality of your evidence.

An accused person carries no buren or no responsiblilty to prove that she is innocent of this charge. The law puts that onus squarely on the shoulders of her accusers and that is the it should be and may it never change L&G.

STANDARD OF PROOF - PROOF BEYOND REASONALBE DOUBT

This country ascribes to the very old maxim that a person is innocent until he or she is proven guilty.

Yesterday, you had heard from two very learned senior criminal barristers in this city. And as they addressed you I have no doubt that you all were taking mental notes and or written notes of the key points they have urged upon you MLFC

So that is a good stating point MJ. When considering the ase against CA please start by ging her a clean sheep of white A4 paper. When you deliberate that facts you have heard, you place on that piece of paper the facts you might find have been probed to the required standard.

Now MLFC MS Gordon told you taht there is no need for the Crown to prove every individual fact and listed 4 things that she considered that the Crown must prove to discharge the legal obligation upon the accuser. These 4 things are in fact the elements which make up the cahrge of EXPORTATION - count 4. MLFC said these 4 elements were:

1. That it was drugs export out of NZX
2. That drug was a ClassA
3. CA intentionally participated in the export, and
4. CA knew that she was exporting this prohibited thing or she turned a blind eye.

I am going to add a 5th element which I submit is also an essential element of this charge and this is,

5. That CA must have known that the things being exported was a controlled drug.

These are the facts which I submit that the Crwon must individually prove to a standard whereby NONE OF YOU are left in any state of RD as to CA'S guilt.

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:

So what proof beyond reasonable doubt? Subject to what HH will instruct you on this I suggest that RD is not a difficult concept but nor is it a fanciful consept. It merely requires the application of you COMMON SENSE, somethin which you as a jury of 12 are well equipped to collectively apply. It is just a matter of FEELING SURE, feeling sure that MLFC has discharged her obligations in accordance with the weight of the evidence.

As I said before IN ORDER to convince you that MLFC has not discharged this legal obligation to prove this one charge aginst CA to a standard of BRD, I am going to refer to the evidence and HIGHLIGHT some pointers which may assit you in your deliberations.

I will talk about the evidence in 3 parts:

• How the relevant evidence relates to Parties to Offence law focussing on whether in fact there is adequate proof of the JOINT ENTERPRISE that MLFC spoke of,
• The video interview given by the Accused.
• Some of the other evidence given touching the allegation againts my client.

PARTIES:

My learned friend has argued that CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that comes out this trial should leave you with an unshaken view that what we have ehre was a joint enterprise between Frank and Caroline to traffick in ClassA controlled drugs. Again I will talk about the law as to parties but anythig I do say is subject to HH'S directions when she instructs you.

EVERYONE IS A PARTY TO AND CUILTY OF AN OFFENCE WHO

• COMMITS THE OFFENCE, OR
• DOES OR OMITS AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING ANY PERSON TO COMMIT THE OFFENCE.

For the purposes of this trial I dont think I need continue with the rest of the descrition of this concept because the Crown have not raised these other matters. So, suffice to say the Crwon are putching Caroline Aroh as either a principle together with Frank Aroh, or a helper of Frank Aroh to secure the export of either Cocaine or Heroine.

PRINCIPLE OR SECONDARY?

The wording of this section suggests that you have to find facts to support the theory that CA was a principle in this export or a helper in this export?

The evidence adduced come from;

1. Exh 69 being teh piece of paper written by Carolaine Aroh and lets look at that.

The first noticeable thing in my respectful submission is that this has NO DATE. We dont know when it was written and it is unclear as to where exactly this note was tound when the search took place on the 30 August 2004. Irrespective, the note records the Parnell Shop phone number, the CC number of the package, the address at Brisbane. On the back of the note is a list for shopping I think.

MLFC suggested to you that this note must have been written before CA travelled to Brisbane. What is the proof for that proposition? It is not enough to simply rest on this question - well why on earth would anyone in their right mind have written the information which this exhibit containes? That is basically the approach that the Crown are inviting you teh Jury to embark on. Such an approach in my respectful submission is guess work which quite frankly (and no pun is intended), guesswork has no place in a criminal trial in AOTEAROA.

Now if CA was a principle in this postage, would she not have just gone with the customer copy of the consignment note from Post Shop rather than making a note at all? If it was written for the purposes of TT the pack, you would not be doing that from the port of receipt would? You are more than likely going to enquire at the point of the export being here in Parnell Auckland.

So, Just because this exhibit exists MJ it does not mean that it was created by CA before she left NZ on that March trip.

2. Now if you were to look for evidence to support the Crown theory that CA was a helper there has to be proof of ACTUAL ASSISTANCE. This acutal assistance must occur BEFORE OR AT THE SAME TIME as the commission of the offence. In the case of a continuing offence, it is enough if the aiding occurs after the commencement of the offence but before its completion.

MAJOR ISSUES ARISE AS TO THE QUESTION OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION of the act of Export:

I suggest you look at the following points to answe the question of what is the evidence to support this.

1. The question of when is the offence of EXPORT complete? Assuming all other things are proved when is the offence of export complete? Now as a matter of common sense we can rest assured that it begins when one is packagin, endorsing the address and taking it to the PS. It is placed in the postal system and it cannot be retrieved bac thereafter. Now I stand to breected by HH but in my submission once that package was placed in teh postal system the act of export is completed. There is nothing that the sender can do to retrieve it back short of toing to the other end and waiting for its arrival.

NOW if I am right in this interpretation you will need to look at what ACTUAL ASSISTANCE did CA render to put the package in to that point. The answe is NIL EVIDENCE members of the Jury.

It was posted on the 26 March 2004 and CA leaves NZ on the 28 March 2004. There is a piece of paper which this information about the postage, but we do not know when this was created.

IF HOWEVER, HH tell you that I am wrong lets look at the matter from the point of view that teh charge of EXPORT is a continuing offence and completes when it reaches it's destination. Consignment address is the Homestead. So what is the evidence that this pack ever reached the Homestead? The evidence tendered by teh Crown was through Mr Bauckham who confirmed that the consignment was on a plane destined for Australia which left NZ at 9.40am.

If it is suggested taht the emails at TABS 8 AND 9 prsents the proof well lets look at these. Accepting that all other matters have been proved lets just look at these. READ READ THESE OUT.

L&G there in nothing in either emails that suggests that this pack EVER ARRIVED.

This is point no 3 above L&G and the law requires the Crown to prove EXPORT did occur to a standard whereby none of you are left in any state of RD.

I am left with submitting that the Crwon has failed in this regard.

3. There has to be proof BRD that CA had the requied INTENTION to export the package. Here two distinct mental elements arise:

• The Crown has to prove BRD that CA knew of the essential matters that constitue the offence of export by the principla offender Frank.
• The Crown has to prove BRD that CA had the intention to help Frank completer the export.

4. Again what is the evidence that the Crown are offering up to prove this very crucial element? Similar facts is being offered of Frank's conduct. BUT before you can resort to using this evidence, before this evidence can be used at all MJ you have to be firstly satisfied that there was a COMMON PLAN.

5. My base submission to you on this point is that there in no reliable evidence of a common plan. In other words, there is no relable sourc of evidence from which you can infer a common dedire. The Crown have suggested for you to consider the references to 'the wife' my wife in the taped converstaions. You will recall the interview of Mrs Aroh which I will embard upon later but you will recall particularly tape 3 when Det Scott is saying words to the effect;Well you know my conern is why are Frank and Mike talking about you doing the errand etc. You will also reall Mrs Aroh's absolute spot on reply to these qustions to the effect Well I dont know - I was not the one taped on the phone - you will have to ask Frank or Mike - I Know nothing about drugs - I do not know what they are talking about.

6. That MJ is a complete REJECTION of the suggestion that this accused person knew of the essential matters of the export. In other words she had no knowledge of the intention to export drugs let alone of the ClassA catergory.

7. WHAT IS MORE L&G what is more of a gapping hole in this argument is this, Caroline AROH is accused of illegal conduct in the month of 3/04 and the Crown are inviting you to apply a reference to "my wife" in a telephone taped converstaon some 6 months later - in 8/04 as proof. AYE WHAT??? YOU MAY WELL ASK. There is no reasonable PROXIMITY of time in the two points and I suggest to you MJ it is too far apart to have any cognisance at all. There is nothing in between March and August to even suggest that this accused was in on it. They dont even have her saying HELLOT to Mike or Steve or Aloo or nobody.

8. Some of you may be saying well what about the emails? I recall MLFC calling these the NAIL IN THE COFFIN - presumably for CA. Well lets scrutinise these again. The email talks about Caroline getting a call from a guy called Mike and a deal. A drug deal?? High speculation MJ. For a criminal charge as we have here, you would be justified is asking for more evidence please.

9. L&G the truth is we do not know what the subject matter is of this email. However, the Crown's approach to the case against this accused has been one of A PRECONCEIVE THEORY OF DRUG DEALING and then spinning the facts to fit. I suggest to you that one needs to look at the facts and tehn ask youselves what conclusions can be drawn from these. Taking snippets out of real life and moulding that to fitinto your preconceive ideas is a NO GO ZONE. That would be plainly the wrong approach MJ and I cannot stress that enough.

10. So just to emphasise again, I suggest to you that you should be hard pressed to find evidence of COMMON ENTERPRISE here.

OTHER EVIDENCE:

11. In addition to the 2 emails the Crown points to her alleged willingness to act a courier allegedly told to TRUDI YAKKAS, TWO SHORT TRIPS TO AUSTRALIA and the Australian cash in the bank.

12. TRUDI YAKKAS was the friend that was a good friend until Frank came on board. Understandably, in my respectful submission, she did become jealous of Caroline finding happiness and leaving her out there in the cold. She obviously was quite keen to be hooked up with Mike in China but he couldnt keep the suggested date for back problems and hospitalisation. The date was therefore frustrated. Meantime Caroline and Frank moved out to Leonard Road and she is left holding the baby or back to paying the full rent. She is reluctant to give Caroline back her property and out of the kindness of this woman, she allows her to keep the bedroom furniture. She pawns the heater but fortunately gets it back again and returns it to the owner.

13. I suggest to you MJ that TYakkas was severely effected by this apparent rejection by her good friend in preference for Frank. There is a saying that goes like this HELL HAS NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED...well I think that was aimed at women lovers but women all the same. The rejection was too much and coupled with the search warrant of her house in April 2004, she fabricates to the Police that Caroline told her she did not mind getting into drug couriering.

14. When Det Scott put the proposition to Caroline Aroh, she spontaneously stated THATS A LIE thats a lie. Do you remember that. Det Scott asked why would she lie? Isnt she a good friend of yours and Caroline's response was "she was'

15. If she was a good friend MJ wouldnt she have double checked with her good freind frist before telling the police? Would she think oh, this is serious, I just better check with Caroline first. No, she gives the police a statement to that effect?? It is a matter for you MJ but I suggest to you that TYakkas is infected with the disease of envy and jealousy and who is also dishonest who more than likely to be defrauding and telling provider services lies in order to sure credit.

16. The Crown pointed to the two short trips to Brisbane. So what MJ. How many of you would travel just for the weekend. We had heard that Caroline went to Brisbane in January 2004. It was for a short trip. She did intend to see her sister and daughters father but regrettably she came back without doing either. So shes back in March she told you and this time she did see her sister. There is nothing in this short trip that would entitle you the Jury to take the quantum leap and equate that as short trip for dealing for matters of ClassA controlled drugs.

17. She was criticised for not owning up to having met somebody over in Australia. Do you remember those questions by Det Scott. Did you take anything over for Frank/Did you take any drugs for Frank.

18. Well, what is the evidence that she took anything over for Frank. NIL

19. What is the evidence that she met up with Mike in Sydney? NIL. Her email talks about the future meeting with Mike but did not confirm that there was an actual meeting.

20. In addition MJ please keep in mind that this was an interview in August 2004. Can you recall what you did six months agin detail? I would very much doubt it.

21. Lastly, we have the Australian cash in the bank. I daresay they could have produced the deposit sleip for this but NOTHIN is put up except for the fact that Caroline returns from Sydney and again the weaving of the web continues so that the facts can be made to fit the frame.

THE VIDEO;

22. The evidence is the tapes all 3 of them. You are encouraged to resee this inerview again because you will gain some vantage points from seeing this again. Particularly against what I am now going to highlight about this interview.

She is asked WOULD YOU TELL ME IF YOU HAVE and the answe would be YES I WOULD!!

Det Scott then confronts her by saing I put it to you that she traffics in drugs and money. Again she denies and denies and does not accept any of the confronting questions.

She was asked whether she has heard of the name BLESSED JACOB. Again MJ view the tape and feel her spontanious reply. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS NAME.

She freely admits to picking up the drug free packs from NZ Post. She talks about Franks friends that Frank told her about. She is asked whether she knows of Frank picking up any mail from Lorne Street.

SIGNIFICANTLY she says I DONT REALLY KNOW...I THINK THERE IS A LOT THAT HE IS NOT TELLING ME AND I GUESS I NEVER WILL.

The interview contunues to spill out the evidence of the controlled deliveries. She think taht Frank goes to an African church and denies his attachment to the Methodist Churh.

The interview is beginning to contain really serious information and the once confident Caroline Aroh becomes questioning now.

She cannot believe that her name was on a parcel. Despite the fact that the name is spelt differently, she immediately recognises it as her name and she does not try to confuse the issue dows she. She says surprisingly THATS MY NAME!!

Det Scott accuses her again of having a hand in sending drug infected greeting cards but again she denes and she says MJ AND I DONT KNOW WHETHER FRANK WOULD SEND DRUGS IN MY NAME.

It's a matter for you MJ but when I watched that tape I felt deperation in this vice and saw it on her face. OH PLEASE DONT LET IT NOT BE TRUE!!

In TAPE 3 she is told of the controlled delivery on the 17 August 2004. She said HOW COME YOU DID NOT ARREST HIM THEN.

She is referred to the taped converstaions and is asked to explain why she is being talked about on the phone. She is asked DOES this talk sound like to you and she think about her answe and says it sounds like I have carried drugs before. She CONSISTENTLY DENIES this any such conduct. She is asked what she knows about Frank exporting to Australia. She says she knows nothing abut that and is not involved.

And facetiously MJ she said in a raised voice to the detective what you are leading up to is that I would be over in Australia to continue the dealing because according to you I have done this before. She continues thereafter MJ to deny any involvement. She declines the propostion that Frank has ever asked her to do anything like this for hime. THIS IS THE RESPONSE THAT MLFC FOR THE CROWN IS SUGGESTING TO CONNECT THE MARCH TRIP INTO THESE DRUG TALKING IN AUGUST 2004.

Finally I just want to leav this with you. As I said in my opening statement. In my submission there is not addtional information that the police came to in leaving the charging till then. They had all the information to charge EXPORT by November when Det Scott told you she had retrieved exh2 being the consignment note from Parnell employess. The parcel is shown to be in the system then and waiing forClaire Rogers brief in March 05 was in my submission not necessary in the overall scheme of export. All that evidence confirmed was that she stayed at that address which was never denied.

The analysis therefore raises a point about the motive of charging her at all. I had suggest to the OC case that perhaps this was a strategy to obtain Frank's co-operation and perhaps plead guilty to save his wife remembering also that their new born son was 4 months old then. The suggestion was declined but what you do think MJ.

I personally rate our police force and border controllers as providing our community with security. I can go out places at night and sleep at night without fear of my safety. I just love returning home from an overseas trip and being greeted by a Customs Officers at the airport with a WELCOME HOME MAAM greeting. But they are not infalliable for they are as human as you and I. It therefore goes without saying that somethimes when you believe something so hard, the tendency is to confuse the real issues. The tendency in this case was to read too much into Caroline Aroh's own conduct. There are too many holes in the sieve that when the facts a shaken around as I have been demonstrating we are left with nothing in the sieve.

23. Caroline Aroh is a spontanious speaker. Not only that, L&G, she articulates well. There are NIL ATTEMPTS by her to confuse the issue or 2 avoid answerng the questons.

TAPE 1 shows her being orientated to the interview. Name and personal details. But then Det Scott goes off to seek as much information about Frank from her about some packages from BRAZIL remember that. Despite Brazil being a high profile country for trafficking, we know that there were these shoes which were in fact DRUG FREE because the evidence is that Customs allowed these to be delivered.

Moreover, Caroline is seen to be informing Det Scott of the detaisl of calls to the house. She is asked about her trips to Egypt.

TAPE 2 is about the two trips to Australia. She was asked about whether she had carried any drugs through and she replies ITS NOT EASY TO TAKE DRUGS ANYWHERE, I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN CAUGHT. The alarming question is then followed - WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? Well isnt it obvious. But Det Scott is thinking 'AHA' maybe she has tried to do this before!!

She is not guilty members of the Jury and I earnestly urge that view upon you all.