SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24482, 3 February 1945, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED Pour young men were each admitted to probation for two years on charges of indecent assault on a male when they appeared for sentence In the Supreme Court yesterday. Their counsel asked that their names should be suppressed, but Mr Justice Northcroft said that the case was certainly not one In which the Court should make any order. This meant that the Court would not Interfere with the ordinary process of publication. The prisoners were Pete Ballantlne, clerk, aged 22. Ashley David Hart, manufacturer. aged 19, Trevor William Nunweek, - draper’s assistant, aged 19, and John Brian Brake, student, aged 18. Mr K, P. Thompson appeared for Brake, Mr W. R. Lascelles for - Nunweek and Hart, and Mr N. C. Bradley for Ballantlne. Mr Thompson • said that Brake was an adopted son, and his father was a country storekeeper. For 11 years he and his mother had lived In Christchurch,- the father returning on alternate week-ends. When the mother died, the father decided In the Interests of the boy’s education to leave him to live alone In the house. It was not a normal life for a boy to live on his own. He was the youngest of the quartet, and since the two cases in June there had been no repetition. Mr Lascelles said that Nunweek's parents were reputable people, and he was an. only son. He was in no sense a gadabout, but he would have been benefited by living a more robust life and Jilaying team games. His association with hese transactions had been very limited. He was at the house only twice, and never went back. Mr Lascelles said that Hart was one of five sons, three of whom were overseas. He was trustworthy ■ and worked Hard In the factory, but there was an absence of regular virile games. . Mr Bradley said that Ballantlne had served In the Army for two years, and then qualified as a bomber pilot, later be-ing-placed on leave without pay. "He was acutely conscious of the shamefulness of what he ha'd done. - Condition of Probation “I accept the representations of your counsel that,, being young and not yet In control* of your normal Inhibitions and restraints, you yielded to this sort of Imgulse,” said his Honour. “I think It would e proper to place you all on probation. 1 should say to you all that my view of these happenings Indicates not merely opportunity, provided by Brake, but propensity. "This descent Into sexual perversion is such that I, as a very much older man who has seen a good many offenders of this character, must warn you that sexual perverts are perhaps the most unhappy of mankind. They get no real gratification and live in a state of remorse and concern from their propensities, which they find they are very soon, unable to control. All four of you are in great danger of becoming confirmed sodomists. if you have not already done so, and you must make the most earnest effort to resist any diversion from normal sexual behaviour and not give yourselves lives of unhappiness and degradation." His Honour added that a condition of the prisoners’ probation was that they should not associate with each other.

Joint Charge ‘ Two young men, James Herbert Fraser, seaman and labourer, aged 21, and lan Arthur Hlne, fitter and aircraftman, aged 21, appeared for sentence on a joint charge of breaking, entering, and theft. Mr Lascelles appeared for Hlne, and Mr E. S. Bowie for Fraser. Mr Bowie said that Fraser, who was employed on the patent flip at Wellington, earned £6 a week, and had been brought up by his mother. Lack of parental discipline, high wages, and his youth, might explain, although not excuse, the crime. Mr Lascelles said that Hine's father had died when he was nine years of age, and lack of parental guidance during his adolescent years might account for a certain lack of responsibility in his life. His Honour said that he regarded the prisoner as an Irresponsible, requiring discipline in his own interests. He had deliberately absented himself from his duty and undertaken a very substantial and deliberate burglary. That was something more than irresponsibility. Fraser’s case was bad, in that the offence was the same, but the Court was prepared to place him on probation for two years. Hine would be remanded for sentence for a week, so that further consideration could be given to his case. On a charge of assault and causing actual bodily harm, which he had admitted in the Magistrate’s Court, Ernest Wil- ' liam Lawfleld, a fitter, aged 37. was sentenced to three months’ Imprisonment With hard labour. Mr J. T. Watts said that from the evidence there was no provocation for the assault, and no evidence of any previous quarrel or bad feeling. There had been a suggestion that the prisoner was the worse for liquor, but he had had two glasses of beer and a glass of sherry. There appeared to be no rhyme nor reason in the offence, and one must look to some outside circumstances for an explanation. “Your counsel presents you as a man who suffered a brainstorm for which you were In no way to blame, and which was a matter of grave misfortune to yourself and the unfortunate woman whom you i assaulted.’ said his Honour. "My view is that you are a man with a history of offences for drunkenness who became i

stupidly and fighting drunk and proceeded to the house and used violence on this unfortunate woman." A sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment with hard labour was Imposed on John Payne, a labourer, aged 52, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault on a female. His Honour said that prisoner had been before the Court for drunkenness, assault, obscene language, and fighting, but the last offence was 12 or 13 years ago. The Probation Officer reported that he drank too much, and that might have had a bearing on his offence. “That, however,' cannot be taken to mitigate to a substantia] degree the grave nature of your offence. If you are unable to restrain yourself from liquor, I must put you where other children will not be endangered by you."