CITY CRIME

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 165, 15 July 1941, Page 8

CITY CRIME

SMALL CALENDAR

AMATEUR BURGLARY

SUPREME COURT COMMENT

" It is satisfactory, I think, to be able to say that it is rather less than the usual amount of business for some time past to find 15 indictments against 16 persons on the calendar," said Mr. Justice Callan in charging the Grand Jury in the Supreme Court at the opening of the criminal sessions to-day. An Uneasy Feeling "Another satisfactory feature" continued his Honor, "is that there are only two cases of a sexual nature. That is satisfactory to those who have the unpleasant task of listening to these cases. I doubt whether it would be safe to make any further inference of a favourable nature. Before doing that it would be wise to remember the large number of disgusting cases which had to be dealt with by the Court last sest ion. The revelations there made undoubtedly suggested that the crime of homosexuality existed to an unexpected degree in this city." His Honor proceeded to remark that there were eight cases of alleged attempted theft in various forms, of which six had an element of breaking and entering. There were indications in some of them of the wholesale scale in which housebreaking of various kinds was occurring, and that the persons charged did not appear to be of the professional burglar class. This was disquieting, and seemed to indicate a lack of respect for other people's property about which one must feel uneasy." The Duty of Motorists Four of the indictments, added his Honor, alleged negligent driving of motor vehicles resulting in the death of three human beings, and in bodily injury to another. In another similar indictment a true bill had been found last session, and the hearing was held over till this session.

Respecting the four cases to be considered by the grand jury, his Honor said that in none of the cases was there any suggestion of intoxicating liquor, nor wa\ there any suggestion of recklessf driving. The fault alleged was ona lesser nature, but, perhaps, more prevalent. It was that there was a momentary relaxation of the vigilant attention which ought at all times to be maintained by the driver of a motor vehicle while it was in motion in a public place. It was the lookout, the watching ahead, which was alleged to be at fault in all the four cases

That was not in the same category as when persons caused death or bodily injury to others when driving while under the influence of liquor or with reckless haste, his Honor said. But it was the duty of the law to discourage any relaxation of vigilance when driving, although it did not entail the same severity of punishment as in cases where there was the element of drinking or of reckless driving.

A feature in each of the cases the grand jury had to consider was that it was not a collision, but a matter of a pedestrian being run down. He could well understand that it might appear to the jury that the pedestrian killed or injured was not so careful as a reasonable person should be His Honor pointed out that contributory negligence by the pedestrian was a legal defence in a claim for damages, but in a criminal action it was no answer to a charge of negligence by the motorist that the pedestrian also was negligent. His Honor proceeded to outline the features of the 14 indictments placed before the grand jury indicating that they might find true bills in all cases.