SENTENCES VARIED

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30668, 6 February 1965, Page 19

SENTENCES VARIED

Fines Instead Of Gaol

Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday imposed fines of £5O each on two men who had appealed against sentences of three months’ imprisonment imposed on them in the Magistrate’s Court on January 28 for homosexual offences. Kevin Clarence Sinclair, aged 23, a shopkeeper, had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on a charge that, being a male, he permitted another male, Allan Crombie Potts, to do an indecent act on him on January' 15.

Potts, aged 37, an exchange operator, appealed against the same sentence imposed on a charge that on January 15, being a male, he indecently assaulted another male, Sinclair.

Mr I. C. J. Polson appeared for the Crown in both instances. Mr B. J. Drake appeared for Potts and Mr S. G. Erber appeared for Sinclair. In allowing the appeals his Honour said that both men had pleaded guilty to the offences.

The type of offence was one which had become regrettably prevalent in Christchurch, said his Honour. It was not the first time he had sat on the Bench to deal with such matters.

Parts of dividing walls in conveniences had been removed to facilitate just the type of offence which was before him. That showed the extreme lengths which those involved in the commission of such offences were prepared to go to. That and the prevalence of the offence must have weighed heavily with the Magistrate in imposing a term of imprisonment on each of the appellants, said his Honour. However the fact stood that neither of the appellants had previous criminal records, and their reports showed they were of high order in respect of behaviour. His Honour said it was extraordinary that two men unknown to each other should have been involved in such a degrading offence. A term of imprisonment was not inappropriate, considering the prevalence of the offence, not only in impressing on the appellants but also the public that such offences would not be tolerated.

However in view of the appellants’ previous good character he would vary the sentence to one of a £5O fine in each case. His Honour had earlier indicated that before giving his decision on either of the appeals he had felt he should hear submissions.