Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Supreme Court SENTENCES STAND

No Leave To

Appeal

An application by James Real, aged 21. a factory hand, for leave to appeal against sentences aggregating three years’ imprisonment imposed in the Magistrate's Court in Christchurch on February 2. 1902, was refused by Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday. Reel was sentenced on 11 charges involving theft, burglary, counting-house breaking. aggravated aasault, and shopbreaking. Real, who was not represented by counsel, appealed against these sentences, but his Honour said that, as the appeal was out of time, he would treat it as an application for leave to appeal For the Crown, Mr C. M. Roper submitted that this was an appeal "quite without merit” in view of Real's previous offences and sentences. Borstal Training His Honour refused an application by Norman Barry Johnstone, aged 17, for leave to appeal against a sentence of Borstal training imposed in the Magistrate's Court in Christchurch on March 22 for receiving a stolen bicycle. For Johnstone. Mr B. McClelland said that a number of previous offences, which had been dealt with in the Children's Court, had been wrongly taken into account by the Magistrate in imposing this sentence. Apart from Uiese offences, and traffic offences, Johnstone had only two convictions on minor matters. When Johnstone came up for sentence in the Magistrate's Court, the Magistrate was given a probetaion officer's report almost a year old. This report made at a time when Johnstone was going through a period of complete irresponsibility, could have unjustly told against him a year later, counsel submitted.

In refusing the application, his Honour said he could not see any grounds for holding that the sentence of Borstal training in this case was manifestly excessive. Johnstone's convictions in the Children’s Court were properly included in the probation officer’s report. and formed a necessary part of the background information which a magistrate would require before sentencing, he said.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19630720.2.252

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30188, 20 July 1963, Page 18

Word Count
318

Supreme Court SENTENCES STAND Press, Volume CII, Issue 30188, 20 July 1963, Page 18

Supreme Court SENTENCES STAND Press, Volume CII, Issue 30188, 20 July 1963, Page 18

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert