A former Addleshaw Goddard and Simpson Grierson lawyer who admitted possessing methamphetamine has appealed against his conviction.

IT lawyer Marc Cropper worked in Addleshaw's London office for five years before rejoining Simpson Grier in 2013 in his native New Zealand. However the prodigal son's return was marred in July 2015 when he was caught in a police drug sting. Cropper pleaded guilty to possession of between 2.5g and 4.5g of methamphetamines, enough for around 200 hits (supposedly: RollOnFriday has relatively poor knowledge of precise meth measurements).

The Auckland District Court convicted Cropper in April this year. The presiding judge said Cropper was a "high flying, high achieving, high ranking ... lawyer" who had a "fall from grace".

  "High flying, high achieving, high ranking". Generally high.
 
Cropper has now appealed against his conviction. His lawyer Peter Davey recently appeared before the High Court in Auckland saying that Cropper was at a "critical" time of his life and a drug conviction was an "insurmountable obstacle" to gaining employment. Davey argued that Cropper had been driven by his addiction, but had taken steps to address this, including an 18-week rehabilitation course. He said that the conviction was out of proportion with his offence.

Justice Rebecca Edwards in the High Court reserved her decision.
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 18 November 16 08:08

I hope for ROF's sake that it has evidence that 4.5g of meth would be enough to fell the average sized rhino, the concept of 'mere puff' in advertising appearing to have died...

Anonymous 18 November 16 08:55

If caught with this quantity of drugs, you are likely to come a cropper.


I'll get my coat.

Anonymous 18 November 16 10:59

"(supposedly: RollOnFriday has relatively poor knowledge of precise meth measurements). "

Nice save.

Anonymous 18 November 16 12:08

"RollOnFriday has relatively poor knowledge of precise meth measurements." Yeah, right.

Anonymous 18 November 16 23:52

Doesn't one appeal a sentence? All those mitigating circumstances don't act as a defence against the charge, surely?