Chief Justice Criticises Probation Officer’s Ruling

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30196, 30 July 1963, Page 16

Chief Justice Criticises Probation Officer’s Ruling

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 29. He was at a complete loss to see what right a probation officer had to tell a man on probation that he was not to visit his wife every week-end, the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) said in the Supreme Court today. His Honour discharged Noel Charles Dawson, aged 19, who appeared for sentence on the original charge of burglary—for which he had been placed on probation —as the result of a breach of probation. His Honour said it was an application under Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act to sentence Dawson on the original charge. He was not at all happy about the procedure as the only information before him was an affidavit by the probation officer that on a certain day Dawson failed to work as directed with a certain employer. He was not satisfied that that was the proper way to bring the information before the court, but it had not been objected to and Would make no difference to the decision he had arrived at. Dawson had originally been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 12 months’ probation, but the sentence was quashed by the Court of Appeal and in place of it Dawson had been released on probation under special terms. It appeared that he failed to carry out one of those terms on one occasion.

“It has been pressed on me that this youth is married, has two children and no small amount of matrimonial difficulty, his Honour said “I have also been told that there is some prospect of he and his wife being reconciled and that if I deprive him of his liberty it might wreck his marriage “I asked for a report from some person experienced in

marriage guidance. I now have a complete and useful report which indicates that a short separation would not destroy the marriage but would help to save it,” he added. Referring to a previous alleged breach of probation mentioned in the probation officer’s report, that Dawson visited his wife in Blenheim every week-end against instructions from the officer, his Honour said he was completely at a loss to understand what right the officer had to so instruct Dawson. There was nothing in his probation terms preventing him from seeing his wife. “It is true he is rapidly becoming a complete ne'er-do-well and I think he deserves a sentence of Borstal training. It is because the only breach he has committed is too scanty that he is not being so sentenced,” he said. “But I must make it clear he can’t go on living the. way

he is. He is an irresponsible young married man and 1 have a feeling he probably will offend again. I know he saw his father shot, but many thousands of New Zealanders saw their best friends shot and don't see it as an excuse to neglect their wives and children. "I warn him he is still on probation and subject to the former conditions. He may go.” his Honour said.

Mr R. Stacey, who appeared for Dawson, said his Honour’s remarks about Borstal, if reported by the newspapers out of context, could have an influence on the Magistrate’s Court, where Dawson was due to be dealt with for his breach of probation. “I don't think I can order that anything I say in open Court must not be published. I can’t muzzle the press.” his Honour said.