BURWOOD AFFAIR.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17862, 7 September 1923, Page 7

BURWOOD AFFAIR.

GRIFFITHS SENTENCED.

DECLARED HABITUAL CRIMINAL

By "being declared an habitual criminal, John Griffiths, who came up for sentence at the Supreme Court yesterday, received what is tantamount to a li£e sentence. Griffiths was in Court to receive sentencß in respect of a charge of attempted rape on a girl at Burwood, of ■which offence he had been found guilty earlier in the week. His Honour Mr Justice Eeed sentenced Griffiths to sis years' imprisonment with hard labour on the charge, to three years'imprisonment with hard labour on each of three charges, of breaking and entering, and to two years' imprisonment with hard labour on each of two charges of theft, the sentences to bo concurrent. Mr B. Twyneham, who was assigned by the Crown to defend Griffiths, said' that the latter, was thirty-three years of age, and was born in Christchurch. He had a good record while at the Burnham School, leaving there when 19 years of age. He then went to sea. About four years ago he left for Australia, and was there sentenced to imprisonment on different occasions, mostly in connexion with charges of breaking and entering. There was another conviction against him for being illegally on premises while drunk. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, said that a cablegram had been received from Australia to the effect that Griffiths was wanted in New South Wales for a gross offence. Several medals for cricket had been found in the house at New Brighton where the accused had been living. The medals belonged to Dr. Eeed, of Melbourne, in whose employ Griffiths had been. The gross charge referred to by counsel was in' respect of chloroforming a girl in her sleep. Mr Twyneham said he had not received any instructions regarding this matter, and there was no definite information to sliow that Griffiths was guilty of such an offence. According to Griffiths's story, he came back to the Dominion a few months before he committed the offences which had resulted in his coming into the hands of the police. He stated that he committed the thefts because he was in poor circumstances, and needed some of the articles stolen for the household he was maintaining. Mr Twyneham asked, for leniency. The Begistrar read'the following list of convictions against Griffiths:— Christchurch, September Ist, 1901 — An uncontrollable child; sent to Burnham. Christchurch, July 28th, 1909—Theft, two charges, six months' hard labour on each, cumulative. Wellington, November 14th, 1910 — Breaking and entering and theft, twelve months' hard labour. Christchurch, November 29th, 1911— Theft, two months' hard labour. Christchurch, August 30th, 1912 Maintenance of child; ordered to pay 8s n week Christchurch,. October 16th, 1912 Theft, two charges, one month's hard labour on each, cumulative. Christchurch, September Bth, 1913 — Indecent assault, nine months' hard labour. Dunedin, September 10th, 1914 False pretences, twelve months' hard labour and three years' reformative detention. Wellington, April 12th, 1916—Escape' from prison, handed to authorities. New South Wales, September 28th, 1918—Found in dwelling with intent to steal, six months. Griffiths said that he did not remember the conviction for theft on October 16th. In New South Wales he was sentenced in 1918 for being illegally on premises, not for intent to steal. His Honour said that Griffiths's attack on the girl at Burwood was a very serious and very terrible crime. In declaring Griffiths to be an habitual criminal, his Honour said: As an habitual criminal, you will be kept in prison at the discretion of the Prisons Board. It means life if Jthe Board, as I imagine it will, considers that a criminal like you should not be at liberty. You are one of the most dangerous criminals I have had to deal mth." The only aspect of the case that troubled him, said his Honour, was whether or not he should order Griffiths to be flogged. As Griffiths had such a long list of crimes, he could be declared an habitual criminal, and in view of this fact his Honour felt justified in withholding the punishment of flogging.