Supreme Court Judge Rejects Appeals By Three Prisoners

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29016, 3 October 1959, Page 17

Supreme Court Judge Rejects Appeals By Three Prisoners

Two appeals against sentences and an appeal against conviction and sentence were dismissed in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Haslam. “Your past record is a very bad one indeed and the present offence is a very serious one, and I see no reason to interfere with the sentence,” said his Honour, dismissing an appeal by William Robert Morrison, aged 25, a rotary hoe contractor, against a sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment on a charge of counting-house breaking. Morrison’s association with two other men had all the earmarks of a group setting up in business as safe breakers but who foundered at their first attempt, said Mr C. M. Roper, for the Crown. Hugh Larry Kerr, aged 36, an agricultural contractor, appealed against a sentence of three years’ imprisonment on charges of theft, counting-house breaking _ and having house-breaking instruments (gelignite) in his possession.

The Magistrate had erred in failing to take into account that when Kerr was sentenced with Morrison in 1957 on a large number of charges he was making his first appearance in Court, said Mr B. J. Drake, who appeared for the appellant. Drinking and domestic tiffs led to the offences by the three men. Kerr’s idea of getting the gelignite was not premeditated and arose out of drink.

“Why Carry Gelignite?” His Honour; What about his possession of gelignite in view of his past record? The men had left Timaru in a drunken condition with a vague idea of making some money, and it might well be that if they had not been disturbed in Ashburton nothing might have been done, said Mr Drake. “Then why were they carrying gelignite?” asked his Honour. No gelignite was taken into the theatre, said Mr Drake, and it was only because of Kerr’s concern for the safety of children if the detonators were found that the gelignite was recovered from a vacant section. No grounds existed for divorcing the theft of the gelignite from the other activities, submitted Mr Roper. Kerr had travelled hundreds of miles to steal the gelignite. It was obtained in anticipation of criminal activity that week-end. “Your conduct indicates you were going to follow a career of crime if yon had not been arrested.” said his Honour. I am quite unimpressed with submissions by counsel. Your appeal is frivolous and should not have been made. I think the sentence is in every way appropriate.’

For a young man, Colin Malcolm Hardaker, aged 21, a labourer, had built up a frightful record of offences of various kinds, said his Honour, dismissing Hardaker's appeal against conviction and sentence of corrective training on a charge of theft of bedding from a hut at the Show Grounds. Hardaker was not to know that the articles were not those of a man named Kahua who had been in a hut with a man named Allen, said Mr Drake, for the appellant. In effect, he was convicted on suspicion rather than proof. If the case had gone before a jury, the jury would have been asked to use its common sense, and would have come to the same decision as the Magistrate, said Mr Roper, for the Crown. It was a question of credibility. None of the submissions indicated any reason for interfering with the conviction, said his Honour, dismissing that appeal. It was clear that the property was not Kahua’s but had been stolen during a joint enterprise. Question of Punishment

On the appeal against sentence, Mr Drake said that Hardaker had a record in recent years, mainly of trivial offences, which indicated some degree of irresponsibility. He had been under the care of the Child Welfare Department and in Borstal, but the prison chaplain suggested in a letter that a sentence of imprisonment would be better than one of corrective training. There was nothing in the probation officer’s report to justify the Magistrate’s statement that Hardaker was behind many of the disturbances seen in the city, said Mr Drake; it was an unfounded assumption on the Magistrate's part, and might have been a factor when he ordered corrective training.

To allow the appeal would be a disservice, submitted Mr Roper, for the Crown. Hardaker had been a consistently bad offender since 1954, and had shown no signs of improving. The probation officer’s report showed clearly Hardaker’s ability to use others for his own ends. Hardaker, according to the probation officer’s report, had been associating with bad company and had been able to further his own ends by the youths with criminal records, said his Honour The probation officer's report was that he was plausible and full of good intentions but resented any form of discipline. Hardaker needed correction and discipline.

“I hope you will regard the punishment given you by the Magistrate as an opportunity to reform,” said his Honour, dismissing the appeal.