COURT-MARTIAL AT BURNHAM

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27408, 22 July 1954, Page 3

COURT-MARTIAL AT BURNHAM

K FORCE SOLDIER CHARGED GUILTY OF ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE Appearing before a District Courtmartial at Burnham Military Camp yesterday, Gunner Martin Joseph Patrick Drake was found not guilty of! a charge of deserting from a K Force replacement draft at Burnham on April 28, 1952, but guilty of absence without leave from that date until he was apprehended in Auckland on May 29}, 1954.

On a further charge of losing by neglect Army clothing to the value of £l2 14s Id, Drake was found guilty. The findings are subject to confir-

mation. The Court consisted of Major R. J. H. White (president), Captain J. Rathibun, and Captain G. W. Stanley. The prosecuting officer was Lieutenant I. W. Black and the defending officer Lieu-; tenant J. L. Smith. Captain G, C. C. Sandston, M.8.E., was judge advocate. The accused was at first charged as Gunner Patrick Connor, but the chargfe was amended by the Court after Drake had admitted that he was the person referred to, and that he had enlisted under the name of Connor, because he believed he was over age for K Force.

For the prosecution, Captain J. E. Hobson, adjutant of Burnham Camp, produced documentary evidence of Drake’s absence from April 28, 1958, and of his arrest by the police in Auckland on May 29, 1954., Staff-Sergeant D. G. Turnbull, Burnham camp quar-termaster-sergeant. produced a list qf items of Drake’s original issue of kit which had not been accounted for, and which it was alleged *he had losit by neglect." Evidence by Accused Giving evidence, Drake produced -a copy of his birth certificate, showing his date of birth as August 5, When he had enlisted for K Force itn Timaru, he had been told that tile upper age limit was 32, he said. He then decided to adopt his mothers maiden name, and to reduce his agle so that he could enlist. When he had entered camp, he had been asked foe* his birth certificate, and realising that he had made a fraudulent enlistment, he decided to leave camp to se«e whether he could obtain a medical certificate stating that he was« unfit fotr service.

Personal difficulties intervened, and he did not feel able to return to th|e Army ■ until he had provided enough money to support his wife and chilsd while he was away, said Drake. Hie left his Army clothing with a friend in Christchurch, and intended to pirf< it up before he returned to the Army. However, his friend had now moved from his earlier home. Drake said he had been in the Army during World War II from September, 1939, until 1945, and that he had been in action as an infantryman with Nos. 19 and 25 Battalions.

Summing up for the defence, Lieutenant Smith said that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that Drake did not intend to return, if he was to be found guilty of desertion < and this had not been proved. Drake# had also taken reasonable, steps to protect his kit in leaving it with his? friend in Christchurch.

Lieutenant Black said that, though it was impossible to prove what was, going on in a man’s mind, it was possible to infer from the facts that Drake did not have the intention to returp. A soldier’s kit was his responsibility when it was issued to him, and remained his responsibility even though he might leave it with'someone else.

The sentence of the Court will be promulgated when it has been confirmed.