REPUTED THIEVES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 251, 23 October 1935, Page 8

REPUTED THIEVES.

"NO SUCH THING."

COMMENT BY JUDGE. WATERSIDES, ACQUITTED. There is no sucli thing as a reputed thief, neither is there such a thing in law as a person considered "undesirable." This comment was made by his Honor, Mr. Justice Callan, yesterday afternoon during the trial of John Thomas Scott, aged 39, who was charged with being an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, in that he habitually consorted with reputed thieves. . The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. J. J. Sullivan and Mr. K. Aekins. Mr. 11. Meredith appeared for the Crown. Mr. Meredith said the case was a simple one. Accused had been convicted as a rogue and vagabond in '1034 and since then had been habitually consorting with convicted thieves or reputed thieves. By so doing he had committed the present offence. A number of constables and detectives were called by the Crown and the witnesses detailed the persons Scott had been seen in the, company of, and stated whether those persons were convicted thieves or reputed thieves. In cross-examination it was admitted that Scoct was. a member of tlia Waterside Workers' Union and worked on the wharf. During the cross-examination of the witnesees his Honor eaid that a reputed thief was a person who was reputed to be addicted to thieving. Because a person was convicted of theft »ome years ago was the Court to assume that he still went about habitually thieving? A man might have committed a trilling offence whifch he had since bitterly regretted. Constables gave evidence of receiving couipjainte, but how was the Court to know that the complaints were true? He would not admit any reference, to persons stated by the police witnesses to be "undesirables," as there was no such thing in law as a person considered undesirable. ,

"Vigilant Committee." Mr. Sullivan called witnesses to show that Scott was a member of the Watersiders. Union for many years and the persons of whom the police had given evidence he associated with were, mostly waterside workers. There was a "vigilant committee" on the waterfront whose duty it was to see that members of "the union were not thieves or reputed thieves in the sense which the Crown sought to indicate. Scott had never been convicted of dishonesty and had always given satisfaction at his work.

To the jury Mr. Meredith said six police officers had stated definitely that Scott habitually consorted with convicted and reputed thieves. The police were in the best position to judge the type of Scott's companions. Scott had persisted in associating with such people, although he had been previously convicted for doing so.

In addressing the jury Mr. Sullivan said that, to come within the section of the law under which the charge- was laid the accused must have habitually consorted with reputed thieves. There must be something more than to merely make an assertion. In nearly, all cases the grounds given for making such assertion was' either the previous conviction of alleged reputed thieves or that the police had inquired about some crime on one occasion from the alleged reputed thief. On either of these grounds the police alleged that the associate of the accused was. a reputed thief. The law, after all, was the apportionment of common sense and to suggest that a man who was convicted four, five or six years ago, and ha.d since led a perfectly decent life,' was, in accordance with the police view, a reputed thief, was not common ■ sense. To hold with the police would be setting all principles of redemption and reformation at naught. If the law was as the Crown held the Probation Act might as well be repealed. The basis of the charge against Scott was that he had associated with men who had been convicted many years before, and consequently he was regarded as a reputed thief. In cross-examination a constable stated that if a man was convicted about five years ago he might not consider him a reputed thief. "That," said Mr. Sullivan, "was curious and a new law was made at Freeman's Bay police station. Other constables were not inclined to agree. According to the police, inquiries if made at any time would make a man a reputed thief. The reputation must be at the time of the association with the accused, not years before." An Important Case. "This is not a trivial case," said Mr. Justice Callan in summing up. "In many ways it is a very important case. There is to be considered the seriousness of the charge. An incorrigible rogue means that it is pretty hopeless to think a man can ever be corrected. The law which makes it possible to put a man away before he can commit an offence is quite properly part of British law. A fundamental of British law is its mercy to an accused person—giving ,the benefit of the doubt—and it may seem in« conflict with the fundamental principle that a man can be brought into Court without actually doing anything."

The Vagrancy Act in England, on which the New Zealand Act was based, was very old, continued his Honor. It contained' the idea of putting people away before they had actually done anything. Rogues were divided into three classes-r-bad, meaning those people convicted of being idle and disorderly; worse, meaning rogues and vagabonds; and worst, meaning incorrigible rogues.

"I feel it necessary to explain at length the nature of the offences which could lead to a conviction under these groups," said his Honor. "The sensible and proper object lying at the back of the law can be seen. In all big cities, no matter how well society is organised, there is a dangerous underworld, and the law represents a t measure of control; but a clear case must be "ia-" " :

Habitually Consorting. His Honor mentioned that the New Zealand Parliament had made an addition to. the English law on the subject by inserting a provision that an offence could be committed by habitually consorting with rlputed thieve-, prostitutes and persons without visible means of support. Under that law, one conviction would mean.that a person was idle and disorderly, r second would mean that he was a rogue and vagabond, and a third would mean that, he was an incorrigible rogue.

"I have no hesitation in saying that the working of this provision has to be watched closely," declared, his Honor. "To class a man as a menace to society under this section requires great care in interpreting the words."

His Honor referred to decisions of Sir Eobert Stout and Mr. Justice Chapman, and mentioned that any allegations against a person being a reputed thief should be supported by good grounds. The view had been held, continued Mr. Justice Callan, thaft a person with several convictions for theft could be considered a reputed thief, but at least one of those offences should be recent. It also had been held that a reputation among the police themselves about a person could suffice in such a case, providing it were shown chat J he repute was well foundc" His Honor accordingly directed the jury to consider and investigate the grounds given by the police in the present case in reputing certain persons as thieves.

A Supposition. "Supposing any man was suspected of theft, and supposing the police investigated, but there was no prosecution because the evidence was too weak, common sense .suggests that one eueh occurrence is not a well-founded ground for reputing a man a. thief," said his Honor. "The position would be different with a euccession of such' occurrencee." Referring to the sentences imposed on Scott in the Police Court for being an idle and disorderly person and a rogue and vagabond, his Honor said that it might be that in the Supreme Court the police grounds for reputing certain people as thieves were inquired into for the first time, but -it was not for the jury to say what the decision might have been on those previous occasions. After a retirement of little more than an hour the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty, and Scott was discharged. ' -