SOLDIER SENTENCED TO 90 DAYS’ DETENTION

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29734, 30 January 1962, Page 20

SOLDIER SENTENCED TO 90 DAYS’ DETENTION

Private James Stuart Blyth, aged 26, of the 2nd Battalion, New Zealand Regiment, was sentenced to 90 days’ detention by a district court martial at Burnham Military Camp yesterday. Stoppage of pay of £2 Ils 9d was also ordered.

Blyth was charged with desertion from the camp on October 21, 1961, and with the loss by neglect of clothing and equipment valued at £5 6s lOd. He pleaded not guilty to both charges.

On the charge of desertion he was found not guilty but guilty of being absent without leave. On the loss by neglect charge he was found guilty except for one item which had been returned, the value of the remaining items being £5 3s 7d. The pay stoppage was for about half the cost of the articles.

The Court comprised Major F. A. Gunn (president), Captain T. N. K. Neate and Lieutenant J. A Sanders. Major G. C. C. Sandston was judge advocate. Lieutenant L J. Lynch was the prosecuting officer and Blyth was defended by Captain J. W. R. Murphy. Both the findings and the sentence are subject to confirmation by the convener of the court martial (Brigadier A. H. Andrews). Absent 80 Days Blyth had been absent from the camp for 80 days, from October 21, 1961, to January 9, 1962. Corporal John Michael Richardson said he was in Christchurch on January 9 with Corporal Gerard Ed. ward Haughey when they saw Blyth in the street. After telling a policeman they followed him to a hotel where he was arrested. When arrested Blyth was in civilian clothes, said Corporal Haughey a member of the regimental police, who gave evidence about the arrest. Evidence of the deficiencies found in Blyth’s clothing and equipment was given by several witnesses. Blyth elected to give evidence on oath and call witnesses. Captain Murphy said he intended to show that Blyth intended to return to camp and that he had not lost the missing items of his clothing and equipment by neglect. Prisoner’s Evidence Blyth said after leaving camp he had visited Christchurch, Rangiora. Cheviot, and Kaikoura. He had, in Christchurch, met an officer and a private from his battalion. He had told the officer he was going to return to camp and give himself up. He intended to return to the camp, bv January 15. when he had heard the battalion was to form up. The missing clothes had not been lost but he had left some articles at different places, including his parents’ home. He had written away for uhese articles and expetted their arrival at any time.

A parcel which had arrived for Blyth that day was produced and found to contain closing which he had left at his parents’ home. Blyth said he could not give any reason for leaving camp, except there was one complaint, and that concerned beer. When away he spent most of his time drinking beer. He left his trousers in Kaikoura because he went to a party there and when he woke tip he was in Christchureh

son said he had seen Blyth in Christchurch about January 2. Blyth had approached him and said he was going to give himself up. He had told Blyth the battalion was going to reform on January 15 and he had better return to camp. He had not arrested Blyth because he believed him when he said he was going to give himself up and he wanted to give him that opportunity. The prosecution had failed to produce evidence that Blyth intended to stay away from his unit. Captain Murphy said. Evidence had been given that he intended to return.

He asked the Court to look on Blyth’s case as one of being absent without leave. On the second charge. Captain Murphy said the accused had said where some of the clothes were and that one of his letters had already brought some of the items to light. Summing up, Major Sandston said to prove desertion the prosecution had to prove the accused formed an intention not to return to service. In mitigation Captain Murphy said the offences had been brought about basically by drink.