RESISTED POLICE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27190, 6 November 1953, Page 14

RESISTED POLICE

PLEA OF GUILTY BY HORSE TRAINER FINE OF £2O IMPOSED Allan Holmes, aged 42. a horse trainer, appeared before Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on charges that on October 10 he assaulted his wife, Thelma Ruth Holmes, that he assaulted Constable J. A. Mathieson while in the execution of his duty, and that he resisted Constable Mathieson. • Holmes pleaded not guilty to the two changes of assault and guilty to the charge of resisting. The charge of assaulting his wife was dismissed for want of prosecution when Mrs Holmes would not give evidence against her husband. The charge of assaulting Constable Mathieson was dismissed for want of prosecution because the police offered no evidence on- the, charge. Holmes was convicted and fined £2O on the charge of resisting the police. Sub-Inspector F. J. Erady prosecuted, and Mr R. A. Young appeared for Holmes. When the first charge of assault was called, Thelma Ruth Holmes went into the witness box, gave her name, and said the accused was her husband. Sub-Inspector Brady: I understand, Mrs Holmes, you have an application to make. Mrs Holmes: Since the case we have come to a satisfactory agreement and I do not wish to give evidence against my husband. The Magistrate: In that case it can’t go on. The charge was dismissed for want of prosecution. Sub-Inspector Brady: I offer no evidence on the charge of assaulting the constable. The Magistrate: The charge is dismissed for want of prosecution. Struggle • at House Holmes then pleaded guilty to the charge of resisting the police. Sub-Inspector Brady said tnat, up to the time of his arrest, Holmes was living at Yaldhurst with his wife and two children. At 3.30 on the morning of October 10, at the request of Mrs Holmes, Sergeant R.< E. Marriott and Constable Mathieson went to the house in a patrol car. They were arresting Holmes on another charge when he violently resisted. The three were struggling on the ground and Holmes was fairly free with his boots. The constable received a kick on the face and Holmes had to be handcuffed. He was under the influence of liquor at the time.

Mr Young said the circumstances were greatly regretted by the accused. The offence occurred early in the morning of the finish of the international air race and there was some discussion whether the children should go to the airport and then there was argument and some trouble. This arose and came to a head through domestic discord. Holmes desired to apologise to the police for the trouble he had caused them. A medical report showed that Holmes was suffering from a condition with which he should not take liquor and he had given an undertaking not to do so. He had an ulcer and there was a suspicion of cirrhosis of the liver and he would be taking medical treatment. The parties had met in the morning and the arrangements made were such that there would be no more domestic trouble. It was the first time Holmes had ever been before a Court.

The Magistrate said he would sentence Holmes at 2.15 p.m., the case being adjourned at noon. Magistrate’s Comments •‘Holmes, I have been concerned as to what to do with you, more particularly in view of the fact that your wife, who got the police out on the morning of the incident, did not wish this morning to give evidence against you, so the charge could not proceed,” said the Magistrate when the Court resumed.

“Then the police withdrew the charge of assaulting the police and substituted the charge of resisting the police, for which the punishment is the same, but in the eyes of most people the offence is not as, heinous. That must put any Court on its inquiry as to whether the usual punishment of imprisonment should or should not be meted out,” said the Magistrate. “I have had to approach the question from the viewpoint of whether you should be sent to gaol. “There are a whole lot of things I don’t know about this incident, particularly as your wife has not gone on with the prosecution for assault,” said the Magistrate. “If both matters had been fully aired it could have been gaol for you before I left the it possibly would have been. I would hate to gaol you, in spite of the information, if under the circumstances there are any facts which should reasonably deter me from doing .it. “It is because I don’t know the full facts of the case, possibly through the good offices of your wife, that I am not going to gaol you. I warn you that you have been close to gaol for this,” said the Magistrate.