SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25935, 15 October 1949, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED Two prisoners, one of whom had previously pleaded guilty to the charges against him, and one who changed his glea from not guilty to guilty, appeared efore Mr Justice NorthJcroft in the Su-. preme Court yesterday for sentence. Reformative Detention Victor Alexander Smith, aged 42, a miner, who had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court to two charges of indecently assaulting girls aged 9J and 10J, was ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for a period of 18 months. Mr J. K. Moloney, counsel for Smith, said that the prisoner was very intoxicated when the offences were committed. He did not realise where he was, and, counsel submitted, his mind did not go to the commission of the offences. His Honour said the case was a serious one. If, as the doctor’s report said, the prisoner had no moral consciousness to offset instinct, it was clear he was a danger to children. Hard Labour Norman Lowrie Forrester, aged 27, a freezing works employee, who had pleaded not guilty in the Magistrate’s Court to charges of negligently driving a motorcycle on Riccarton road on June 11, thereby causing the death of Thomas Michael Sloan and bodily harm to Francis Roy PurdOm, changed his plea to guilty on each charge. Mr E. M. Hay, who appeared for Forrester, said that the prisoner was somewhat mentally retarded. He was injured in the accident on June 11 and had no recollection of what happened after he Went on to Riccarton road. Because his memory was affected, it was impossible for the prisoner to offer any explanation for his failure to stop behind the tram. Counsel said he wanted to dispel any suggestion of there being liquor in the case. His Honour asked if that was relevant. Was it more serious to be intoxicated in charge of a vehicle or, being sober, charge at high speed through a group- of people descending from a tram? Mr Hay said that the prisoner had suffered great remorse. The man who lost his life was Forrester’s friend. Forrester had resolved not to ride a motor-cycle again. Some form of punishment short of imprisonment would meet the case.

His Honour said that the case had given him considerable concern. Hft was reluctant to send a young man to prison, but the prisoner’s record show’ed that h*e was irresponsible. On June 4, a week before the accident, the prisoner was convicted on a charge of being drunk in charge of a bicycle, and he had" committed other not of a serious nature, but showing irresponsibility. It was the Court’s duty to send him to prison, not only as a punishment for the offence, but as a deterrent to others.

Forrester was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. His driving licence was cancelled and h*e was disqualified from holding a licence for a period of five years'. Appeal Dismissed

An appeal by Alan Francis De Lury, aged 27, a painter, against the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, imposed by Mr F. F. Reid, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court on • September 6, on a charge of wilful and obscene exposure, was dismissed.

Mr A. W. Brown, for the Crown, outlined the case against De Lury, and said that De Lury had admitted the offence. Mr J. K. Moloney, counsel for De Lury, said it was a fact that the offence was committed, but it was not done to attract the attention of any person. He submitted that the sentence was out of proportion to the offence. Counsel gave details of De Lury’s medical and personal history.

His Honour said he was afraid there was some misunderstanding about appeals from sentence. Such appeals were not merely for another sentencing. What had been placed before him would have been proper if he had been sentencing in the first instance. His duty was to ascertain whether the decision of the sentencing Court was so manifestly at fault that it should be reviewed. On what had been placed before him that was not the case here.