Appeal Leads To Doubling Of Sentence For Assault

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28840, 10 March 1959, Page 5

Appeal Leads To Doubling Of Sentence For Assault

(New Zealand. Press Association)

HAMILTON, March 9. A man who appealed before Mr Justice T. A. Gresson in the Supreme Court at Hamilton today against a six weeks’ gaol sentence, imposed on a charge of assaulting his wife, to be followed by one year’s probation, during which he was required to take out and maintain a prohibition order, had the gaol sentence doubled. His Honour said the case was the first which had ever come before him where he had taken this course. The appellant was Rupert Neil Wolfgramm, aged 33, a builder, of Ngongotaha (Mr R. A. Potter). Mr Potter said the sentence had been imposed by Mr R. M. Grant, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Rotorua on December 9.

Mr Potter said that on September 9, three months previously, Wolfgramm had been sentenced by Mr W. H. Freeman, SM-, to one month’s gaol for a similar offence. This fact, Mr Potter said, appeared to have become the dominant feature in Mr Grant’s arrival at the sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment. On the first occasion there had been two other men before the Court at the same time as Wolfgramm on similar charges. Mr Freeman had commented that there was “too much of this.” On Wolfgramm’s December appearance Mr Grant, in sentencing Wolfgramm, said he did not appear to have profited by the earlier sentence. “Technical Assault” Mr Potter said the charge had arisen out of a domestic upset between Wolfgramm and his wife and in which there had been misunderstandings on both sides. He submitted that the assault had been a technical one and said that by the time the police, who came quickly, got to Wolfgramm’s home the couple had settled the difference and had become reconciled. Mrs Wolfgramm had refused to make a statement and subsequently declined to give evidence against her husband. Mr Sanford said that in his view the case was one in which the Court might well increase the penalty imposed by the Magistrate. He was not suggesting that this should be done but was merely suggesting that he considered there was justification for such a consideration. His Honour said that Wolfgramm had been released frpm prison less than two weeks before the second assault took place. •‘Violent Assault” “I am satisfied that he committed a violent assault on his wife,” he said. “Violence of this sort—by men to women and particularly by husbands towards their wives—must be discouraged.” He considered the penalty im-

posed was clearly inadequate. He would therefore quash the sentence imposed by the Magistrate and impose a term of three months’ gaol to be followed by one year's probation during which time Wolfgramm would be required to abstain from liquor. Wolfgramm’s wife, who was seated in the back of the Court, broke down and called: “What good will it do?” Wolfgramm made some comment which could not be heard.