DETECTIVES GAOLED

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28216, 2 March 1957, Page 6

DETECTIVES GAOLED

Two Years For Blackmail

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, March 1. Thomas Joseph Keogan, a detective sergeant; aged 43, and Wray McCracken, a detective, aged 28, were today each sentenced in the Auckland Supreme Court to two years’ gaol on charges of demanding money with menaces with intent to steal it. Keogan was sentenced to two years’ gaol on each of four charges, and McCracken to two years’ gaol on each of two charges, the. sentences to be served concurrently. Mr Justice Finlay, imposing sentence, said: “It is a very painful duty to have to deal with this case. It was painful before and it is painful now in passing sentence.” On February 16, Keogan was found guilty by a jury on four charges—that on April 13 last, he demanded with menaces the sum of £2O from Albert Hong Duk with intent to steal it, and under similar circumstances took £6O from Wong Chee on or about March of last year r and £6O and £7O from Wong Git on April 27 and December 11 respectively. McCracken was acquitted on two of these charges and convicted on the other two.

Both men were also charged on four counts of corruptly accepting or obtaining bribes. No verdict was taken irl respect of Keogan, and McCracken was acquitted on two charges, no verdict being taken on the other two charges against him. His Honour said that crimes such as blackmail struck at the very root of good government and another damaging feature of the case had been the serious breach of trust in a service, the integrity of which was essential to the public welfare. The deterrent aspect went beyond the fact that the prisoners had been in the Police Force, although it was true that in this case, no personal cruelty had been used by the prisoners. His Honour said the most merciful view he could take was that the crimes in each case were an element in a course of conduct. Probation was quite impossible. Maximum Sentence ‘*l am a little surprised that three years is the maximum sentence the Court can impose,” he said. In fixing punishment, he would take into account that the 'prisoners had lost their positions of honour and brought discredit on themselves and others. At their ages there was an opportunity for some rehabilitation.

After carefully considering the evidence again, he could not find anything to enable him to discriminate between the two prisoners. said his Honour. He then sentenced both men to two years’ gaol on each charge, the terms to be served concurrently. Mr L. P. Leary, Q.C., pleading for leniency for Keogan, said that the irregular hburs Keogan worked, domestic disharmony and sadness might be contributing factors to the offences. Counsel emphasised Keogan's excellent record in the force, saying he had received a number of merit certificates for first-class work and that his default sheet was hil. For McCracken, Mr L/ F. Moller said that, in his case, there was no suggestion of high living or irresponsibility in financial matters 'or otherwise. Counsel said that perhaps McCracken was more “on the fringe of this” and foolishly let temptation get the better of him on these two occasions.