FIVE YEARS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 266, 9 November 1928, Page 9

FIVE YEARS.

SENTENCE ON EX-POUCEMEN.

CRIME OF SERIOUS CHARACTER

"CASE CLEARLY A BAD ONE."

APPLICATION FOR RE-TRIAL,

Sentences of three years' hard labour to be followed by not less than two years' reformative detention, were passed upon two ex-policemen—Thomas Francis Carroll (29) (Mr. J. J. Sullivan) and Sydney Francis Waters (33) (Mr. Moody) —at the Supreme Court this morning by Mr. Justice Smith. The prisoners, who stood trial last week, were found guilty of ar3on. Carroll, who was also found guilty of making a false declaration regarding the insurance on the burned building, was sentenced to nine months on this count, the sentence to be concurrent with that on the major count. The crimes of which both men were convicted were committed on the night of August 29, when Carroll's shop at 62, Napier Street, was destroyed by an explosion and fire. Good Police Records. Mr. Moody said Waters had a particularly good record at the war and in the Police Force, and had been paraded before the whole of the force and complimented by high officials for arresting a burglar unaided. He had brought ruin upon himself and upon his aged mother, and had also brought some measure of discredit upon the excellent body of men with whom he had been associated as a policeman. The lapse was an unfortunate one and was not likely to be repeated by any other constable. Waters had received a severe injury to one hand and arm, which involved the nerve, and might result in permanent weakness. Counsel did not suggest the case was one which could be dealt with under the Probation Act. Waters had been drinking rather heavily prior to the offence and also on the night of August 29. "The lucky man of the outfit is Mr. Tait," said Mr. Moody. "However, he has been acquitted by the jury." His Honor: Are you entitled to make that comment ? Mr. Moody said he proposed to make some reference to Norman Tait, a taxidriver, who was acquitted by the jury on the charge on which Waters and Carroll had been convicted. His Honor: I think you are just as much bound as the judge is by the jury's finding. You have no right to allege that Tait is a criminal when the jury has found him not guilty. Mr. Moody: Very well, I shall proceed no further. Mr. Sullivan said Carroll had borne an unblemished career and his record in the Police Force was equally as good as that of Waters. He had been recently married, and the conviction had meant ruin to his young wife. Counsel urged his Honor, while inflicting a sentence which would punish Carroll for what he had done, to take into consideration that it was the one lapse the prisoner had made in his life. That the offence was of an exceedingly serious nature and was premeditated was the submission of Mr. Meredith, Crown solicitor, who said that it was difficult to trace the offender in cases of arson, and a fire started by explosive means might cause a conflagration and loss of life. Also, the two men had brought some discredit on the Police Force, of which they were formerly members.

"Grave Danger to Public." In delivering sentence, his Honor said the case was clearly a bad one. The building destroyed was not the property of the conricted men; it had been insured for £600 and would cost the owner £1100 to replace. The crime was one of wilful destruction, which meant grave danger to the public, and could not be lightly regarded by the Court. Waters was a member of the Police Force and was wearing the King's uniform on the night of the crime. Carroll wished to save himself from bankruptcy. The jury had found him not guilty of conspiracy, and that must be accepted. "To attain their miserable ends the prisoners brought about a destructive fire," said his Honor. "They chose a time when the streets would be deserted. Fortunately, no one suffered death from their act."

Continuing, his Honor said it was necessary to take into account the serious execution of the crime, the prevalence of offences of this kind, and the difficulty of detecting the guilty persons. There was also the callousness ol inflicting loss on a private citizen and a member of the community.

"It is hard to understand the jury's recommendation to mercy. The only reason for it could be that the men have previously borne good characters," commented his Honor.

Application was lodged by Mr. Sullivan for a re-trial of Carroll on the grounds that the jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence. A fixture has been made for 9.15 a.m. on Monday, when the application will come before the Court.