Supreme Court Appeals Against Sentence

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30737, 29 April 1965, Page 25

Supreme Court Appeals Against Sentence

Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday dealt with five appeals. Four were against sentence only and the fifth was against both conviction and sentence.

The appeal of Russell Wallis Pengelly, aged 17 (Mr G. R. Lascelles) brought against conviction and a sentence of one year’s disqualification from driving and a fine of £lO imposed on him on January 27 in the Magistrate’s Court, Rangiora, on a charge of dangerous driving on December 13 was dismissed.

Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Crown. Mr Lascelles said the Crown case had to be considered in the light of the police constable’s attitude and he could hardly be described as impartial. The driving though it might have been careless or foolish, was hardly dangerous, said Mr Lascelles.

His Honour said that what had impressed him in the constable’s evidence was that he had seen a manoeuvre which had appeared dangerous and it incensed him. His Honour dismissed the appeal and awarded costs against the appellant. CANCELLATION LIFTED In removing the cancellation on a driver’s licence His Honour said it seemed to him the driver involved had fallen only a little short of the degree of care he was called on to exercise and for that reason he felt the cancellation had been excessive. Thomas Cunningham Malcolm, a retired hotel keeper (Mr W. F. Brown) had appealed against a sentence of one month’s licence cancellation and a fine of £7 10s imposed on him in the Magistrate’s Court on February 5 on a charge of careless driving near the Star Hotel on November 7.

Mr N. R. Morgan appeared for the Crown. Mr Brown said that in the collision that had occurred on November 7 there had been no element of speed, no injury, little damage and Rte appellant had an excellent driving record. His Honour varied the sentence by quashing the cancellation of licence.

IMPRISONMENT CONFIRMED Ben Matthews, a rubber worker (Mr R. L. Kerr) appealed against a sentence of three months’ imprisonment imposed in the Magistrate’s Court, Rangiora, on March 28, on a charge of driving while disqualified. Though the sentence was not excessive for an offence of driving while disqualified it was in the appellant’s circumstances and because of his financial position, which had rapidly gone downhill. Not only was Matthews suffering but also his wife and children, said Mr Kerr.

He submitted that a shorter term of imprisonment would be just and would assist in Matthews’s rehabilitation. He also made an application that the one month Matthews had served at a remand prison should be counted in the three months if the appeal were unsuccessful. His Honour dismissed the appeal but allowed the application. Mr Roper appeared for the Crown. "TRAINING NEEDED” The appeal of Marie Catherine Geehan, now aged 21, against a sentence of Borstal training imposed in the Magistrate’s Court on March 19 on a charge of false pretences was dismissed. His Honour said that Geehan, who was not represented by counsel, in written submissions to the Court had asked for the sentence of Borstal training to be quashed and another penalty imposed in its place. In his view probation was out of the question as she had in the past virtually abused it and that as she was now 21 years of age he had considered a term of imprisonment. However he had come to the conclusion the only possible thing for Geehan was Borstal training as it was clear from her past behaviour that she was badly in need of training and as probation had failed the only way she would get that training was at Borstal.

Mr Roper appeared for the Crown.

SENTENCE CONFIRMED Edward George Hawker, aged 34, a loom operator, unsuccessfully appealed against a sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed in the Magistrate’s Court on March 24 on him on a charge of having sexual intercourse with a girl aged 12 who was under his care and protection.

Mr N. R. Morgan appeared for the Crown, Mr G. R. Joyce for Hawker.

Mr Joyce submitted that the sentence was excessive in view of the circumstances

and character of the appellant as the sentence was unnecessarily lengthy in deter-

ring him from future similar offences.

His Honour in dismissing the appeal said the ease was a very bad one of its kind, the child was the child of his wife and had lived as one of the family since 1959 and the offence had not been one of impulse.