Counsel Criticises Uniform Sentences

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30940, 22 December 1965, Page 3

Counsel Criticises Uniform Sentences

(New Zealand Press Association) DUNEDIN, Dec. 21. The practice had grown in Dunedin of uniform sentencing to prison terms of persons convicted of driving while intoxicated, Mr J. D. G. Neil, told Mr T. A. Ross, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court today.

Mr Ross was recently appointed to the bench in Dunedin.

Mr Neil said the practice made it difficult to vary sentences and inhibited pleas in mitigation of the offence. The situation had reached a stage where one solicitor had told a client that he could do nothing for him. The practice had been persisted with, even in the face of judicial censure, Mr Neil said.

The law had always been inclined to be tender with first offenders. However, young men with little experience of the effects of liquor had been treated in the same way as seasoned drinkers. Mr Neil said his comments were not intended as criticism of Mr J. D. Murray, the other Dunedin magistrate. Mr Ross said he certainly did not conform to the theories of uniform penalties for the offence. “Penalties must be conditioned to the offender, and the nature of the offence,” he

said. “The interests of the community have also to be considered.” It appeared that in many cases throughout New Zealand a fine was not a satisfactory deterrent. Such offences were often committed by persons who led, or appeared to lead, otherwise blameless lives. The toll of road deaths was a matter for serious consideration, the Magistrate said.

Referring to the case before the Court, Mr Ross said there was no doubt that the man was seriously intoxicated. Information before the Court had shown that the defendant, because of his state of intoxication had been advised not to drive. He had at first permitted his wife to drive and had later driven himself. “This is the serious aspect and it takes away anything that might be said in mitigation,” Mr Ross said. The Magistrate said that he saw no reason why a term of 10 days’ imprisonment with

three years’ driving disqualification should not be imposed. There might be pleas put forward why a prison term should not be imposed at this time of the year, but there had been such a “spate of publicity” about the dangers of drinking and driving that any plea of that sort had now lost any weight it might once have carried, the Magistrate said.