SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28020, 14 July 1956, Page 13

SUPREME COURT

PRISONER’S APPEAL DISMISSED An appeal by Warren Henry Hastings, aged 33, against the sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed in the Invercargill Magistrate’s Court on June 8 on 14 charges of breaking, entering and theft, was dismissed by Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr J. A. Bretherton, counsel for Hastings, said that the appeal was on the ground that the sentence was excessive. Hastings’s only previous conviction was in 1947, when he was fined £lO for unlawfully converting a bicycle. He apparently embarked on this series of offences and was not apprehended until a year had passed. More than £l6OO worth of goods was stolen, of which £5OO had been recovered. Hastings said he was not the ringleader, but had fallen in with two experienced criminals when he had been drinking. They deserted him when he was caught. Mr P. H. Mahon, for the Crown, said that Hastings did not tell the police about these two men when he was arrested. He told the police he was alone on eight of the occasions. His Honour said that he regarded the appeal as quite hopeless. The only doubt in his mind was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was sufficiently severe. Hearing Adjourned The hearing of an appeal by William Glover, aged 27. against the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed on him in the Invercargill Magistrate’s Court on June 8 on three charges of breaking, entering and theft, was adjourned.

His Honour said that subject to Glover making full restitution of £2BO and the payment of a further £2O towards the cost of the prosecution it would be proper to quash the sentence imposed by the Magistrate, and in lieu of that to admit Glover to probation for three years on special conditions that he applies for a prohibition order and keeps it renewed for the period of his probation and that he abstains from intoxicating liquor and drugs. Glover might have his case brought before the Court again as soon as counsel was able to give an assurance that restitution would be made, said his Honour. He was only intimating what the position would be if the conditions were met. He was not in a hurry to release Glover. It would do him no harm to stay where he was for a period. Mr J. A. Bretherton, counsel for Glover, submitted that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was excessive. The three offences were committed on one night in association with Hastings and at the latter’s suggestion. Glover was a first offender, but the Magistrate did not call for a Probation Officer’s report before imposing sentence.

His Honour said he had remedied that position by procuring a report from the Probation Officer. The case was one in which a report ought to have been obtained from the Probation Officer before sentence was imposed. Generally speaking, he thought it important that before substantia] sentences of imprisonment were imposed in the Magistrate’s Court there ought to be a report from a Probation Officer.