APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25303, 1 October 1947, Page 3

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

SENTENCE REDUCED BY COURT

FAILURE TO ENROL IN RESERVE

The sentence of three months’ imprisonment, imposed on James Daniel Quigley at Darfield on August 26 by Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., for failure to enrol in the National Reserve, was reduced to imprisonment for one week by Mr Justice Fleming after hearing an appeal by Quigley in the Supreme Court yesterday against his conviction. Mr C. S. Thomas, who appeared for Quigley, said the appellant was described as a labourer, but he was really a highcountry musterer, and that should be taken into consideration by the Court. He was a married man with three children and lived at Annat. When war broke out the family was living at Rakaia and Quigley followed the occupation of high-country musterer. This was a seasonal job which started in October and ran through to the winter. During the off season Quigley was at home and worked for neighbouring farmers. In 1941 he went to the Rakaia Post Office for a

form and filled it in. Some time before this, two high-country musterers told Quigley that they had tried to enlist at Christchurch but were told that thtey

were not wanted and were to go back to their jobs. Though Quigley might not have done the things he ought to have done, if he had done them he would not have been taken by the Army. He carried on his occupation as a musterer, not knowing he had done anything remiss. This year he was interviewed by the police and he said he had filled in a form at Rakaia, continued counsel. Quigley was then told the form could not be traced. He was then served with a summons to appear in the Magistrate’s Court at Darfield. He thought, from what was said by the constable and from the belief commonly held, that he was guilty, and he pleaded guilty. It was doubtful, however, whether he had committed an offence at all. Quigley maintained that he did put in his application, and he thought, when he did not receive a notice, it was because high-country musterers were exempt. It was not a case of a man evading his responsibilities, and there was no suggestion that he had been hiding. Mr A. T. Donnelly, for the Crown, said the regulations were in operation in 1942, a time of great national emergency. Quigley was then 32 and must have known it was his duty to enrol. From the fact that from 1942 until the end of the war he was not called up he must have known there was something wrong. Counsel said he would concede that, if Quigley was a high-country musterer and had been called up and appealed, his appeal would have been allowed. The regulations were very important at the time they were made. It was possible that the application could have been lost by the Post Office for the Army, but the onus was on the appellant to see that he did get a certificate. He must have known his liability for service, but he did nothing about it. His Honour said he thought it possible the appellant might have been under a misconception that high-country musterers were not wanted by the Army, as they were doing a better jqb where they were. He did not appear to be one of those men who tried to dodge their responsibilities. He was sure that if all the facts had been put before the Magistrate the appellant would have escaped with a fine. “I will admit the appeal and reduce the term of imprisonment to one week—the week he has already served,” his Honour concluded.