SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26396, 14 April 1951, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

NINE PRISONERS SENTENCED WOMAN ADMITTED TO PROBATION “Your case has caused me a great deal of trouble because I am not anxious to send you to prison. But it seemed to me that reformative detention was the only thing which would stabilise you, for you appear to be emotionally unstable and dangerously irresponsible," said Mr Justice Northcroft, when Dorothy Jean Alexandra Mee appeared before him in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence. Mee, aged 24, a waitress, had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court to a charge that she administered a noxious fluid containing carbon tetrachloride to Kathleen Maude Stace with intent to injure or annoy her.

Mee was placed on probation for two years, a special condition being that the Probation Officer determines where she lives. His Honour said he yielded to the pleadings of counsel for leniency. Mr J. G. Leggat, counsel for Mee, Mid that the prisoner had always been in the care of the Child Welfare Department as a child. She married, but the marriage turned out unhappily and Mee had 'to fend for herself and her child, aged 1* months, to whom she was genuinely devoted. She was not unknown to the Courts, but her previous lapses had been those of dishonesty and she had never been extended the benefits of probation or deferred sentence. For some months she had been associating on intimate terms with the man Stace, husband of the complainant. Stace gave Mee work and preferential treatment. He seemed to have made some protestations of love. He was old enough to be her father, but, having introduced her into hi* home as an unfortunate, he embarked brazenly on an intrigue with her. If it had not been for Stace’* conduct the prisoner might not now be in the dock. The offence was devoid of cunning and was clumsy in execution. The complainant was never in any real physical danger. It was • sordid case. Having regard to Mee’s troubled background, counsel Mid he submitted that she waa entitled to a measure of leniency. Term in Borstal John Frederick Gillies, aged 20, a builder’s assistant, Peter Gordon Gillie* aged 17. and Neil Francis Kennedy, aged 18, a garage employee, who had pleadeu guilty in the .Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth to five charge* of breaking, entering, and theft, appeared for sentence. John Frederick Gillie* also appeared for sentence on a charge of assaulting William Griffiths Groom. John Frederick Gillies was ordered to be detained in a Borstal institution for three year*. Peter Gordon Gillies and Kennedy were each released on probation tor two years, a special condition being that they make restitution M directed by the Probation Officer.

Mr R. A. Young, who appeared for the brothers Gillies, said it waa difficult to say anything on behalf of John Gillies on the breaking and entering charges. As to the assault, he should have desisted sooner.

His Honour Mid there was no evidence of provocation except the prisoner's own statement. It was a very brutal assault Mr Young said that feeling was running high in Greymouth at the time. All the parties had had liquor and the offence occurred outside a hotel late at night. He could, hot, in all honesty, plead that John Gillies be released as it was plain he needed a period of discipline and training. The younger one, Peter Gillies, was under the influence of his brother. The father ielt that, with the assistance of the probation Officer, he could keep Peter Gil lies straight in future. Mr E. B. E. Taylor, who appeared foi Kennedy, said that the prisoner took part in the offences partly under the influence of the elder Gillies and partly under the influence of liquor. Restitution could be made. It was a case Where pro* Oation would have a salutary effect and would give the youth a chance to reestablish himself. His Honour said it was quite clear from John Gillies’s record that he waa determined to be insubordinate and a social nuisance. The assault was brutal in the extreme. It was apparent that the breaking and entering offences were all done at his instigation. He clearly needed discipline. Series of Offences

Albert Walter Gilling, aged 33. a driver. Ronald Keith Metallic. aged 31. a welder, and Ernest Syme, aged 21, a labourer, who had pleaded guilty to three charges of unlawful conversion of motor-vehicies. two charges of housebreaking and theft, and one charge of breaking and entering a counting-house, were sentenced to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, the sentences to be cumulative, a total of two years imprisonment. . ( His Honour said that all the prisoners had bad records and all , had been detained th a Borstal institution with no apparent effect, so It was necessary that sterner measures be adopted. indecent Assault Reuben Charles Whitlord Darling, aged 37, a labourer, was sentenced to two years imprisonment .with hard labour on a charge of indecent assault on a boy. His Honour raid that the prisoner had a bad record, but it was his first conviction for a sexual offence. It was a bad case, however, and could oniy be dealt with by a substantial sentence. Theft as a Servant Lester Samuel Holmes-Edge, aged 30, a clerk, who had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court to a charge that, between September 15, 1850, and March 12, 1951, being a servant of the New Zealand Government Tourist' Bureau, he stole and converted to big own use 3s lOd, the property of the bureau, was placed on probation for two years, a special condition being that he make restitution as directs! by the probation officer, Mr R. A. Young, who appeared lor Hohnes-Euge, said it was the first time the prisoner had ever been in Court. At the age of 21 in 1940 he joined the Navy, qualified for a commission, and was firstlieutenant of a landing craft in the Mediterranean. As the result of an explosion, one of his legs had to be amputated below the knee, and the other was so badly fractuied that it was shortened. He had deteriorated mentally and physically over the last six months. He nad suffered a good deal of pain, and had been drinking with men better off than himself. Unfortunately he confided in no one. When questioned, he was quite trank. Counsel said that restitution could be made. The department held £lB3 6s Id in superannuation, leaving £l4O still to be found. Counsel held £125 in his trust account for Holmes-Edge, and the other £l5 could be found. The prisoner was never likely to offend again; he had suffered dismissal and disgrace; he had a grave physical disability; he was a first offender; he had been frank with the police; and he had £l4O of his >wn money to make restitution. In (heee circumstances the Cbpri might impose some sentence short ot imprisonment. ’ His Honour said it was customary for the Courts to deal severely with cases where servants stole from employers. He. was prepaied to take the view that the prisoner's disability, resulting from injuries received on service, might have been a contributing factor. The circumstances distinguished the case from others of this type, and he was prepared to place the prisoner on probation.