TERM REDUCED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 129, 14 March 1939, Page 3

TERM REDUCED

SENTENCE FOR DUAL VOTING. DECISION BY APPEAL COURT. (Per Press Association), WELLINGTON, March 13. The Court of Appeal reduced to one month’s imprisonment the sentence of six months’ imprisonment imposed by Mr Justice Peed at New Plymouth in February, 1939, on Percy Allen for the offence of dual voting. Mr J . D. Willis, appearing in support of prisoner’s application for a reduction in the sentence, submitted that the original sentence was excessive, and the prisoner, now having served three weeks, should be released. He referred to the affidavit of Allen’s medical attendant, filed since sentence was imposed, and said that the affidavit, together with the evidence given when the prisoner was charged, showed that he had been affected by drink when the offence was committed. It was clear that the offence was not ■a deliberate attempt to deceive the returning officer, because the prisoner was a well-known figure to everyone, including the police constable a.t the booth. Moreover, there was no attempt at personation, and the second voting occurred within a. quarter of an hour of the first. $ Counsel also referred to a case which came before the (Supreme Court in Napier on the same day, where for . a similar offence a prisoner had been admitted to probation. The Solicitor - General, Mr H. H. Cornish, K.C., appearing for the Crown, said that it was just a case of rather a disreputable individual being detected in a rather serious offence. If the Court took the view that the prisoner did not know what he was doing, it was competent for the Court to treat it more benevolently, but the sentence should not be reduced to the extent suggested / by Mr AVilljs. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said ■ that, speaking for himself, he regarded the offence as a serious one.. “One could quite see that in a closelycontested election a few cases of dual Voting' could be a very serious thing for candidates and for the country. Apart from that, Parliamentary elec-, tions must be kept clean.” However, it appeared ; a case where an offender was under the influence of liquor. He was impressed by the affidavit of the medical practitioner, which was not before 'Mr Justice Heed when the prisoner was sentenced. His Honour said he felt that if the affidavit had been before Mr Justice Reed the sentence under consideration would not have been imposed. He thought that justice would be served if the sentence was reduced to one month. Mr Justice Ostler and Mr Justice Smith agreed to the reduction, pointing out that they did fso because they took the view that the offence was not a deliberate attempt to interfere with the election. .