A SEVERE SENTENCE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9815, 26 August 1897, Page 3

A SEVERE SENTENCE.

TO THE KDITOR OP THE PRKSS.

Sns, —I trust you will allow mc to draw a little more attention than perhaps your report will do to a sentence passed in the Police Court to-day by his Worship the Mayor. Mr Cooper, J. P., and Mr T. Gapes, J.r.

A young man was convicted by them on a charge of stealing two brewers' advertisements, value 4s, from an hotel bar. It was proved by the barman and two other witnesses that the accused was drunk. Of that there was no doubt whatever. There was no previous conviction alleged against him. It was also proved that he was a most hard-working young man, that he had been in constant work for seven months. Of two witnesses as to character, one swore that he had always found the accused honest, and added that, notwithstanding the charge, he would trust the accused with anything. These facts were not disputed by the police. I appealed to to their Worships, Messrs Cooper and Gapes, to take into consideration the trumpery nature of the charge, and the unquestioned good and industrious character of the accused and not send him to gaol. I drew their Worships' attention to a merciful provision in the Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act, section 66, under which the accused was charged, whereby in cases of first conviction the Justices can discharge an accused person on condition that he will make reparation for damages and costs. I pointed out that the Act allows this to be done where the amount stolen amounts to even £5 in money. I drew Messrs Cooper and Gapes's attention to the fact that it was obvious in this case that the accused's act was a drunken freak, and that dishoneety or gain was not his motive. I begged of them to administer the Act in the same spirit as the Supreme Court and Stipendiary Magistrates do, and not make a criminal of a young man of good character for one act of folly committed by him -while under the influence of liquor. Such was the case. Messrs Cooper and Gapes sentenced the accused to one month's hard labour for stealing a brewer's advertisement worth 4s out of the bar of an hotel while he was so drunk that the barman would not serve him with liquor. In my opinion the sentence was cruel, and wholly unmerited, and quite out of accord with the present spirit of our laws, that first offenders are not sent to gaol if the circumstances of the case show that leniency will most likely not be abused. I Speaking with some little experience of criminal courts, I express the opinion that I have never appeared in a case, or heard of a case tried, where it was more improbable that the accused would, if liberated, in accordance with the humane and merciful provisions of our present laws, be less likely to abuse any clemency shown him. I might add that the accused is the chief support of his mother, and that his father is in bad health, and is at present (I am informed) an inmate of the Hospital. I fear Messrs Cooper and Gapes did not take time ■to consider what a month's hard labour means. That they turned a deaf ear to my appeal for mercy—an appeal which the law allows and provides for—l care not. I did my duty in the matter by drawing their attention in a, painstaking manner to the law and facts of the case,—Yours, &c, M. Donnelly.