Supreme Court INCIDENTS IN SQUARE: TWO MEN FAIL WITH APPEALS

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29192, 30 April 1960, Page 7

Supreme Court INCIDENTS IN SQUARE: TWO MEN FAIL WITH APPEALS

A sentence of imprisonment imposed on a youthful offender for resisting a police officer during an ugly scene in Cathedral square was partly a punishment to protect the public by making it clear to other persons that if they offended they would be severely dealt with, said Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour was dismissing appeals by Raymond Lester Murray, aged 19, a workman, against his conviction and sentence on charges of fighting (£7 10s fine) and resisting the police (one month’s imprisonment to be followed by a year’s probation) in the Square on March 19.

His Honour also dismissed an appeal by Donald McGregor Murray, aged 26, a musterer, against his conviction for fighting, resisting the police and using obscene language in the Square on the same date. D. M. Murray had been convicted and discharged for fighting, and fined £5 on each of the other two charges.

Mr B. J. Drake appeared for both appellants and Mr C. M. Roper for the Crown. His Honour said that the Magistrate, with the advantage of seeing and hearing all witnesses, had decided to reject the evidence of the two appellant brothers and other witnesses called for the defence in favour of the evidence of several police witnesses. He had carefully considered, his Honour continued, all the criticisms of the police evidence made by the appellants’ counsel but' had come to the conclusion that the Magistrate had rightly attributed more weight to the police evidence. In general, the police evidence was much more reliable. It was true that there w£re discrepancies in the police evidence, but that was not at all surprising in view of the confusion at the scene giving rise to the charges. His Honour said that R. L. Murray had convicted himself out of his own mouth, in crossexamination, in regard to the charge of fighting, and there was ample evidence that he resisted Sergeant Gargett before and after his arrest. There was evidence that D. M. Murray had been fighting and resisting the police before he was struck with a baton, his Honour said, and that he continued to resist after that, so that he had to be handcuffed, and had used obscene language. He had carefully considered counsel’s submission that< the Magistrate, in dismissing the charge against D. M. Murray of assaulting the police, had rejected the police evidence. “An ugly scene had developed ahd the sergeant and constable were heavily engaged to quell the disturbance. They had been hindered by other youths in getting to the disturbance, and the crowd had surged forward. The Magistrate does not say so in his decision, but this could be the reason that the charge of assault had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt,” his Honour said.

His Honour dismissed the appeals of both appellants against their convictions. ,

Although R. L. Murray was only just over 19, Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act did not preclude imprisoning youthful offenders, his Honour said. He cited Court of Appeal cases under the section to show that the public interest had to be assessed in the punishment of young offenders.

“Resisting the police in the execution of their duty in a public place during a disturbance is a serious offence. Parliament itself, by the very composition of the Police Offences Act, has shown that obstructing and resisting the police are to be regarded as even more serious than fighting in a public place. “The record of D. M. Murray is not as good as that of his brother. D. M. Murray has never been in prison, it is true, and the probation officer does not expect him to be a major offender. But the probation officer’s report

shows that he has a measure of irresponsibility. “In all the circumstances, the sentence of the Magistrate was a proper one,’’ his Honour said. His Honour said that there appeared to be an error in the criminal record book in the sentencing. of R. L. Murray. It appeared as though Murray had been fined £5 for obscene language, whereas the Magistrate, in pronouncing. sentence, had discharged him on this conviction, fining him £5 for fighting. As R. L. Murray had not appealed against sentence, Honour said, he did not know of a way in which the sentence could be altered. On his Honour’s invitation, Mr Drake asked that the question be reserved, so that counsel could raise it again if necessary. His Honour granted counsel’s application.