SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24226, 6 April 1944, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED

Several prisoners, all of them youths, appeared for sentence before Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court in Christchurch yesterday. They had pleaded guilty to charges in a lower Court. Malvin Neil Archbold and Maxwell Carter Carney, aged 18, appeared for sentence, having pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a shop and committing theft. John Alexander Finlay, aged 20, a soldier, and Carney appeared on the same charge with reference to another shop. Carney and Finlay had also pleaded guilty to burglary. Mr W. F. Tracy appeared for Archbold, and Mr J. K. Moloney for Carney. Finlay was not represented by counsel. When Finlay was' asked if he held anything to say he remarked: "Only this, your Honour—l am a member of a draft due to go away shortly, and ’ I would like to be with them.”

Mr Tracy said that Archbold had previously been in Borstal and his behaviour had been quite satisfactory until he had met Carney (whose acquaintance he had made in Borstal). "He is not up to ordinary standards of intelligence,” remarked counsel, “and is easily led.” Mr Tracy suggested that the boys should be separated.

On behalf of Carney, Mr Moloney said that he had come under the influence of a woman of mature years when he was only 15, and had been influenced by her. "He did not have much chance in his formative years,” he added. There was a real doubt In the minds of many people, continued counsel, when supporting Mr Tracy’s plea that the youths should be separated, that the Borstal institution was not fulfilling the function that it should fulfil. Contacts were made there that often led to other offences being committed. "These boys should certainly be separated.” he declared. "Surely there is something wrong with the system." His Honour: It might mean only In certain cases, and that some of the boys are incorrigible. Counsel: Some people are rather alarmed at the situation, sir. In his opinion the charges against Carney and Finlay were, said Mr Justice Northcroft, extremely grave, and if they had been older they would certainly have received substantial terms of Imprisonment. They had gone to the lonely hut of an old man, where one had threatened him with a slasher, and they had demanded money from him. Whether the army was prepared to take a young man like Finlay, with his record, he did not know: that was a matter for the army and the prison authorities. However, he was not prepared to release him. Both were ordered to be returned to the Borstal for three years. Archbold's case did not present such grave characteristics, and he was ordered to be detained in Borstal for two years. John Perclval King, aged 18, a cycle stand assistant, for whom Mr W. F. Tracy appeared, appeared for sentence, having pleaded guilty to burglary. He was admitted to two years’ probation. The prisoner had shown a tendency to dishonesty, commented his Honour, but in view of his youth, he proposed to give him a chance to pull himself together. He warned King, however, that if ever he came back to the Court there would be no alternative but to send him to Borstal. Counsel said the offence was due to “the psychological strain of adolescence," The money had been restored, said Mr Tracy, and he asked that leniency be extended in accordance with the recommendation of the Probation Officer.

Parata Te Tuahiwi Tewiata, a youth, who had pleaded guilty to forging a cheque, was sentenced to 18 months’ reformative detention. His Honour referred to the prisoner’s previous record, and remarked that he had taken no notice of warnings.