SUPREME COURT Youth Of 17 Gaoled For Four Years

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31304, 25 February 1967, Page 17

SUPREME COURT Youth Of 17 Gaoled For Four Years

Six offenders, convicted after trial by jury last week, were sentenced by Mr Justice Macartbur in the Supreme Court yesterday to prison terms ranging up to four years. Two youths, Paul Puncho Dewes, aged 17, and Paul Cunningham, aged 20, were sentenced to four years’ and three years’ imprisonment respectively for wounding a woman, in whose flat they had committed burglary, with intent to avoid detection of the latter crime. Dewes, who had pleaded guilty, had hit the woman over the head with a hammer when she awoke and disturbed him, while Cunningham, who was tried by jury, was convicted of standing watch and being a party to the crime. His Honour, passing sentence, said: “Attacks on householders must be regarded with the utmost seriousness. Violence of this kind cannot be tolerated.” Counsel, Mr J. H. M. Dawson (for Dewes), and Mr M. J. Glue (for Cunningham), said that both young men regretted what they had done. Mr Dawson said that although Dewes’s was a serious crime, it had been committed on the impulse, and he was too young to be “written off” with long imprisonment. Mr Glue said that Cunningham suffered from feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, which had led him into bad company

For the Crown, Mr C. M. Roper said: "The crime of burglary is bad enough, but attacks oa householders accompanying it must be regarded with the utmost concern. It was fortunate that this woman did not die." His Honour said that Dewes was already under Borstal training on two charges of burglary, and had not fully responded to such previous training. Cunningham was serving 15 months’ imprisonment on charges likewise. “I have given most anxious consideration to all the circumstances of this case—but in my opinion, the public interest demands that the deterrent element must be the major consideration,” said his Honour. “I have concluded that each of you, although under 21, must be sentenced to substantial imprisonment,” he said. Dewes was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment—which will supersede his Borstal training—and Cunningham to three years’, his Honour saying he was not the principal offender.

Cunningham’s prison term will be concurrent with the 15 months ha is at present serving.

Prevalence of Burglary Commanta on tba prevalence of burglary in and around Christchurch, and the court's concern about It, were made by his Honour in sentencing two men to three-year prison terms. Rang! Samuel Repia, aged 48, a millhand, released on parole last year after being sentenced to preventive detention in 1960, was again sentenced to imprisonment for three years for burglary. He had been surprised by a woman while burgling her house at Templeton last Show Day. Mr P. D. A. Hinchliff, for Repia, said that he had spent most of his life tn Institutions,

but hi, mirrtat* late last year might be a atabllliing influence, and there war “yet some hope” of reform. His Honour raid that In September last, Repia had been before the Magistrate’s Court on charges of theft and being a rogue and vagabond. Mr Roper, for the Crown, aald: "This man was treated with the utmost leniency in September and had a golden opportunity given him for reform. He married, which should have been a further spur to him—but he failed miserably. With the prevalence of burglary, the time has come, I submit, for a substantial prison term." His Honour said that neither Repla’s marriage, nor leniency, extended, had prevented his further indulgence in crime. "The public interest, once again, requires a substantial term of imprlaonment," ho said. David George Keenan, aged SI, a workman with 89 convictions, was told that he was being given “one last chance” Instead of preventive detention, when sentenced to three years' imprisonment for burglary. His counsel, Mr E. O. Sullivan, said it was “difficult to say anything “on behalf of Keenan. “He has not even been successful in the occupation he haa taken unto himself—namely, that of a criminal,” Mr Sullivan said. But he hoped his Honour would heed the Secretary for Justice’s suggestion of one last chance before the imposition of preventive dsten*l°His Honour said that a finite prison term, because of the prevalence of burglary, must be a substantial one—“it cannot be otherwise,” ho said.

Keenan’s three-year sentence will be concurrent with a sentence of 18 months he is already serving for false pretences.

Six Month,' Imprisonment Boydle Ngatal. aged 24, a truck-driver, was Imprisoned for six months on one charge of forgery, and two of uttering, having been convicted of working “a scheme” of altering £8 cheques and cashing them for £BO

Hi* counsel, Mr L. M. O’Reilly, submitted that Ngatal was a virtual flrat offender, as he had no convictions for dishonesty apart from two In th* Children’s Court for stealing hens, and a £3 note. Ngatal had overcome a problem of drink, and with hl* de facto wife’s help had been living a more stable life. “This man has the ability to lead a better life,” Mr O'Reilly said.

His Honour: Yes. but what did he get away with? Ngatal had a long list of convictions, said his Honour, and his offence demanded six months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a year’s probation. Michael Kara Adams, aged 23, a driver, was also sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, for th* theft of £2B from the Asia Cafe, where he had run in and rifled the till. Mr W. A. Wilson, for Adams, said this had been an impulsive crime, doomed to dieaster before it started, committed under the influence of drink. Mr Wilson »afd that Adams had also had stability brought to him by his de facto wife, whom he hoped to marry when he obtained a divorce. His Honour said that Adams, with a number of convictions, could not escape imprisonment, but because of his personal circumstances the term would be made short. Adams's six-month term will be followed by a year’s probation, with restitution of £lB, as th* balance of the stolen money not recovered, ordered.