MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26123, 27 May 1950, Page 8

MANSLAUGHTER VERDICT

MAN SENT TO GAOL FOR 12 YEARS JUDGE’S COMMENT ON FINDING (New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 26. A sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment with hard labour was passed by Mr Justice Finlay to-day on Chesley Lachlan Brooks, aged 20. a seaman and labourer, for the manslaughter of Frederick Stanley Hodson, a bacteriologist. at Onepu, near Whakatane, on February 13. Brooks listened intently to his counsel, Mr L. P. Leary, submitting to the Judge that the jury had in mind the unlawful act of carrying a cocked and loaded weapon. The jury, counsel said, had negatived any intention on the prisoner's part to kill. Mr Leary said defence counsel were fully sensible to the gravity of the position. Brooks, a young man who hitherto had had a cloudless and blameless background, had caused the death of a member of the public of whom he knew nothing. It was natural that the angle of protecting the public should be in the mind of every reasonable person. That might, however, weigh unduly, and accused himself might suffer. He invited his Honour to consider seriously the aspect of the case that the jury had negatived any intention on accused's part to kill. His Honour intervened to say it was quite inescapable that in embarking on an unlawful act the accused had committed the crime. Brooks snowed no trace of emotion when his Honour passed sentence, but turned smartly and glanced towards the public benches before stepping down the stairs to the cells. “Under the influence of advocacy,” said his Honour in passing sentence, /the jury was induced to take a very indulgent view of what transpired. For reasons best known to themselves, they found for manslaughter and not for murder.’’ His Honour said his sole concern was to measure punishment for a man who had unlawfully taken a human life. He cited a case which happened in New Zealand some years ago when a man received 12 years’ imprisonment with hard labour for manslaughter, and said he could not find it would be warranted if he were to impose a less sentence than was then imposed by the late Chief Justice.