Magistrate’s Comment On Thefts As Servant

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27676, 4 June 1955, Page 10

Magistrate’s Comment On Thefts As Servant

Recent decisions in higher Courts on the sentences imposed on persons convicted of theft as servants had been exercising his mind and the minds of his colleagues for some time, said Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, yesterday. He was dealing with Alfred Arnold Graham, aged 44, a clerk, who appeared for sentence on a charge of stealing from his employer, B. O. Nuttall, Ltd, between January 24, 1948, and January 26, 1955. the sum of £992 9s 4d. Graham’s counsel, Mr J. G. Leggat, had urged the Magistrate to consider recent Supreme Court judgments in similar cases when leniency had been extended.

‘‘The question of punishment in cases where employees have been convicted on charges of theft as servants has Been exercising my mind, and the minds of my Christchurch colleagues for some time,' the Magistrate said. “In your case your counsel has urged on me that while at one time imprisonment was considered the almost invariable sequel, that view is not now held in the Supreme Court, and he has asked that leniency be extended to you. “I have to take into account that you had no excuse at all. No ill-health clouded your judgment. You are a single man of mature years, and it could not be said that any pressing need or financial insecurity threw you off your normal balance. “You decided to steal from your employer, and you found it easy. You did it again and again until you had taken a total of £992,” the Magistrate said. “No moral scruples deterred you and I suppose you thought you would get away with it, as indeed you did for seven years.”

The punishment for a crime should be a deterrent, not only to the man punished, but also to other would-be offenders, the Magistrate said. The punishment should prevent others from committing similar crimes. “It is necessary that others of similar mind should be shown that it does not pay, and that if they, in positions of trust, take money from their employers, they will be found out and punished.”

In similar cases the Court had often been urged to allow friends of the accused to make restitution of the embezzled money and that that acttion should be taken into account when fixing punishment, the Magistrate said. “The broad effect of that is that the defendant escapes punishment through the generosity of his friends. I and my colleagues do not subscribe to that view. We think that the punishment should be a deterrent to the criminal and to others. Unfortunately these crimes have become all too frequent of late.

“You are too old for corrective training and there does not appear to be any vestige of excuse for what you have done. You are sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months.” Mr Leggat said in his submissions that this was “one of those rather sad cases which come before thp Courts from time to time,” where a person with a blameless record came before the Court with a list of offences over a lone period. “One is at some difficulty to understand these crimes. There is no evidence here of over-indulgence or of gambling. He served his company well for nearly 24 years.' He was In a responsible position, and his salary was. to say the least, modest. The individual thefts were small, and Graham was himself staggered at the amount involved.”

Mr Leggat asked the Court to consider that the Supreme Court did not take such a serious view of these offences “and I am not speaking necessarily of the Supreme Court in Christchurch.” INDECENT ASSAULT Keith Vincent de la Hunt, aged 18. was admitted to probation for two years on three charges of indecently assaulting females at Christchurch between October 5, 1954, and May 3, 1955. He pleaded guilty when the case was heard previously, and yesterday appeared for sentence. He was represented by Mr E. B. E. Taylor.

De la Hunt’s background had been a mixture of fairly strict control and indulgence with a complete lack of sex education, said Mr Taylor. He did not realise the seriousness of the offences when he was committing them, but now fully appreciated the gravity of his position. Dr. Francis Bennett, in his report on the youth, recommended that he should be given life on a farm “where he will get mud on his boots and blisters on his hands.” said Mr Taylor.

“It appears that this is a case where help and sympathy and determination by the boy will bring an end to these offences,” Mr Taylor said.

“It was proper and I was glad that your counsel did not seek to minimise the gravity of these offences.” said the Magistrate. “I take into account that you are exceedingly young and not, perhaps, of the brightest intelligence.” On x the application by counsel for suppression of name the Magistrate said: “There is no better punishment than publicity for this kind of offence. I place you on probation for two years in the hope and expectation that you will refrain from committing similar offences again. Don’t come here for anything of this kind again. If you do the consequences will be extremely serious ” SIX MONTHS’ GAOL Robert Frederick Woodstock, aged 31. a labourer, was sentenced to a total of six months’ imprisonment when he appeared for sentence on two charges of theft of clothing totalling in value £24. Mr J. G. Leggat appeared for accused. “When a man comes before you with a list which can only be described as formidable there is usually little to be said in his favour,” said Mr Leggat. “These offences were committed very soon after his release from prison. The period of his imprisonment was long. He had worked seven days a week and had built up a credit of some £65. Had he survived another 24 hours he would have been working in the country.

“Both these offences were committed when he was well under the influence of liquor and when he was in the .difficult transitory period between his release from a long imprisonment and his entering again into open society.” Mr Leggat said.

“There are two charges and it appears that you were lucky not t have another more serious offen < against you,” said the Magistrate.

am thrown back to the view that you are indeed an inveterate offender i I might be justified in sending you V the Supreme Court for sentence preventive detention for up to 14 years. But for your present offences you are convicted r and sentenced to three months imprisonment on each, the sentences to be cumulative.” (Before Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M.) TRAFFIC CASES Offenders against traffic regulations, in cases brought by the police, were dealt with as follows: Driving dangerously: Frederick John Baker, £3. Aiding and abetting in offence: Reginald Walter Borcoski. £2. Driving without due care and attention: Colin Campbell, £2; Bruce Robert Brownlee, case dismissed; Trevor Smith, £1; Herbert Fielding, £2: David William Gates, £2; Bruce Patrick McLachlan, £2. No warrant of fitness: Bruce Robert Brownlee, £1: Bruce Clinton Byrnes, £1: Harry Stanley Cobb, £2; Derek Warner Westenra, £l. No registration plates: Bruce Clinton Byrnes, 10s (using unlicensed vehicle, 10s). Failing to give way: Owen Humphrey Costley, £2; Cornelius Kortman, £l'; Allan Roland Thomas, costs only; Douglas Dunn, £1; Charles William Henty, £2; John Edward IHiggison, £2. j Proceeding ’ against automatic lights: Melville Samuel Tailor, £l. Failing to stop within required 'distance: Jim Winton Tyson, £2.