SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24092, 30 October 1943, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED Several prisoners, who had been remanded for sentence, appeared before Mr Justice Northcroft yesterday in the Supreme Court in Christchurch. . . When sentencing Joseph Tainul to six months’ imprisonment with • hard labour for bigamy, his Honour commented upon what he termed “the dreadful criminal record” of the prisoner. . Tainul, an illiterate Hawaiian, aged 43. arrived in New Zealand in 1919. Since then he had been before the Court on 51 occasions .for 63 crimes. The offences seem to have covered all classes of crime, added his Honour. : „ As the girl concerned had been willing to: go with Tainul gs his mistress, said his Honour, ■ he did not think that any harm had been done to her. Nevertheless, the crime was a deliberate affront to the laws-of the country, and he had no alternative but to send Tainul to prison for another term. ~ ' ■ ‘ . Albert Edward Leckie, who had been convicted the previous day on two charges of unnatural offences with a boy, and one of changing his name, contrary to war regulations, made a long statement to the Court before he was sentenced. After traversing certain phases of the case, Leckie complained that, because he had not been permitted ball, he had had no adequate opportunity for conferring with his counsel, Mr- J. K. Moloney. "The jury found you guilty, and I am bound to say that I agree with them, replied his Honour. "That is the view of the jury, and it is not for me to act as a court of appeal and consider putting the verdict aside.” ;, ■ # Though the prisoner had asked for probation, his Honour said that was out of the question. The nature of the offences necessitated a term of imprisonment as a deterrent to others. On the first two charges, Leckie was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, and on the third he was convicted. ... ■ _ Cedric Roy Tennant and Alfred Prangnell, who had been, convicted of receiving stolen property, were both admitted to probation for two years. ’ , Mr F. D. Sargent, when appealing for leniency, said that while Tennant was over 50 years of age, Prangnell was a young man. Both had, hitherto, the best of characters. Counsel characterised their action as having been inspired by a sense of mistaken loyalty, ana as extremely foolish, . His -Honour: ,Ordinarily, the crime of receiving is looked upon seriously, because it encourages and facilitates theft. But I do not consider that this case is such a serious one, They might have begun Innocently enough, but, the transactions lasted only a week, and they apparently were caught In circumstances in’ which they acted foolishly. He was also entitled, added Ws Honour, to take Into consideration the previous good character of the prisoners. Mr J, K,' Moloney pleaded for leniency in the case of Henry Edward Greenway. aged 66. on the grounds of his age and ill-health. For receiving stolen goods,, he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour.- “He is an oid man, obviously at the end of his, life, and g(Mt m ; cfliri - nmtrtGpf . - His Honour commented on the fact that the prisoner had a good many previous convictions, but he took into account the fact that he had not been. before the Court for flvd years. , Six months ’imprisonment with hard labour was imposed on Percy Alfred Sampson, who had pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge. The prisoner, a soldier, aged’29, 'was described'by-Mr .Moloney as “a man of low intelligence, somewhat-dull, and easily led.” “It Is difficult to know what to do In. a Case like this;” his Honour said. However, the disparity in ages of the persons concerned had to be taken into consideration, he said, and though the prisoner was described as dull mentally, he believed that he knew what he was doing at the time of the offence.