Supreme Court PRISON SENTENCE ON YOUTH OF 17 QUASHED

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28938, 4 July 1959, Page 15

Supreme Court PRISON SENTENCE ON YOUTH OF 17 QUASHED

It seemed that the learned Magistrate had overlooked the intention of the legislature in regard to youthful offenders when he sentenced the appellant to three months* imprisonment for car conversion, said Mr Justice Hag<tt in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour allowed ah appeal by Richard John Feamley, aged 17, against the sentence and substituted a term of three .years’ probation, with the condition that he does not own or operate a motor-vehicle during that period. Appearing for Fearnley, Mr W. F. Brown said that apart from a traffic conviction Feamley went before the Court as a first offender. The Magistrate had attempted to justify the sentence of imprisonment on two grounds, both of whicb he submitted were "quite unsubstantial." The Magistrate bad said he could not ignore the fact that Feamley had been involved in a previous charge relating to a motor-vehicle. "That related to one of driving without due care and attention. It is hard to see what bearing that could have had on the question of imposing imprisonment on somebody else," Mr Brown said. The Magistrate’s second, ground was that although Feamley was only n he had been in the Navy and had been about the world. "Implicit in that was the suggestion that Feamley was older than 17 in years, but in fact his sole experience of the world has been since he deserted frhm the Navy,” said Mr Brown. “Apart from the conviction for driving without due care and attention, Feamley is a first offender," Mr Brown said. “It would have been fair to him to have treated him in the lower Court completely as a first offender. “Shedd Bede Probation" “He should have the opportunity which every other boy of 17 who appears as a first offender receives, and be released on probation." If Fearnley were so released, be would not have escaped punishment, Mr Brown said. He had already served two weeks in prison held on a Naval warrant for desertion, and a further week pending hii appeal. ' "That is punishment in itself lor someone of his age, and was urged before the Magistrate," Mr Brown said. He now understood there was every prospect of Fearnley being allowed to return to civilian life by the Naval authorities. “ft is my submission that the prison sentence on Feamley was a harsh one in the circumstances,

that it was excessive, and based on wrong principles,” said Mr Brown. For the Crown, Mr C. M. Roper said he admitted the sentence appeared excessive for a virtual first offender. The other offender involved with Fearnley, also aged 17, had been released by a Hamilton foMiktrate on three years’ •a’&SfiW’SS chance,” Mr Roper said. - V His Honour said he fett the Magistrate in imposing a prison sentence was influenced by the prevalence of car conversion and the necessity of passing a sentence which would be a deterrent to others. •- •, “While I sympathise with the

Magistrate if that was the view he took, nevertheless it seems *° he overlooked the intention of the legislature in regard to youthful offenders," his Honour said. Itwaa true that the probation ofnceifs report did not show up Fearnley in a good light, and his record while serving in the Navy was a very poor one. But having regard to all the circumstances, and particularly Fearnley s age, he considered Feamley should be treated in the same way as his co-offender, and the prison sentence imposed by the Magistrate would be quashed, his Honour said.

MAN’S APPEALS DISMISSED

Judge Refers To “Shocking List” Appeals by Jack Wipa against sentences of three months- imprisonment and corrective training on charges of assault on a female and theft were dismissed by Mr Justice Haggltt in the Supreme Court yesterday. Wipa was not represented by counsel and had prepared his own written'submissions.

‘’You have a shocking list over the last five years," his Honour told Wipa.. “I consider your applications are totally without merit. “You were on probation when the offences were committed and you have had disciplinary sentences imposed upon you before, which obviously merited their purpose. I cannot see how the Magistrate could have Imposed sentences other than which he did ”

Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Crown, but made no submissions. -v...