Supreme Court Admitted To Probation On Charges Of Perjury

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29189, 27 April 1960, Page 11

Supreme Court Admitted To Probation On Charges Of Perjury

A married woman, two young men and a youth, who had each previously admitted charges of perjury, were admitted to probation for two years by Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Agnes Joan Ford, aged 26, the mother of three young children, was admitted to probation only. Kevin John Dellow, aged 19, an apprentice carpenter, and Ronald •Malcolm Hawthorne, aged 21, a driver, were each additionally ordered to pay £5O towards the cost of their prosecution and Jack Feldwick, aged 17, an apprentice electrician, was ordered in addition to probation to pay £3O. His Honour said that each prisoner had committed perjury in the Magistrate’s Court on December 15, last, when they gave evidence on oath that Colin Arthur Ford was not the driver of a motor-vehicle.

“Perjury is a very serious crime and strikes at the very foundations of justice and merits in many

cases the imprisonment of the offender.

“In this case, there are circumstances which justify me in not sending you to prison. Your ages range from 17 to 26, and you are all first offenders except for Dellow. It is fortunate for Dellow that his previous offences do not appear to be serious ones,” his Honour said. He would release all the prisoners on probation and would impose penalties in relation to the age and the type of employment each defendant was in, his Honour continued. He would not impose a penalty on Mrs Ford, as it appeared that her young children and husband would be the ones to suffer from such an imposition. Mr L. G. Holder, for Ford. Dellow and Hawthorne said that the three were either related to or friends of Colin Ford. Ford had been disqualified from driving on previous occasions, and on this occasion had asked the defendants to give false evidence that he was not driving to save him from being sent to prison. “Each of the three defendants now realise the seriousness of their offences. The probation officer states in his report that they realise the desperate seriousness of their offence and, perhaps, the stupidity of it,” counsel said. He said none of the defendants had anything to gain by giving false evidence. They had done so out of misguided loyalty to Ford. Mrs Ford was a good mother, came from a happy home and was an excellent housewife. She had never come under the notice of the police or Court before arid there was no likelihood of her offending again. Hawthorne was in a similar position. Dellow had previous convictions for driving offences but had now settled down.

Mr W. A. Anderson submitted that Feldwick, because of his youth and the comparatively minor part he took in the offences, should be discharged without conviction under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act.

Feldwick had turned 17 only nine days after the offence, and had thus just missed the protection of having his case heard in the Children’s Court, counsel said, submitting that Feldwick’s name should be suppressed. Feldwick was of essentially good character. He had only, innocently, agreed to do what Colin Ford had asked after Ford had twice approached him. After consulting the Crown Prosecutor, Mr P. T. Mahon, who said he could not recollect a perjury case in which guilty persons had had their names suppressed and could not even recollect an application for suppression, his Honour said he felt it not a suitable case for suppression, “The defendants should have had the strength of character to stand up to Ford and tell him to own up and face the music instead of acceding to his wishes to save him by giving false evidence,” his Honour commented.