MR LEE, RETIRING CHCH SENIOR MAGISTRATE

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31539, 29 November 1967, Page 18

MR LEE, RETIRING CHCH SENIOR MAGISTRATE

The Periodic Detention Centre in Bristol Street, St Albans, had been very successful and had contributed much to the rehabilitation of young offenders since it opened in November, 1965, said the chairman of the centre, Mr E. A. Lee, S.M., the Christchurch senior magistrate, who retires today.

Mr Lee has served on the bench for more than 19 years, first at Timaru and then in Christchurch. In 1961 when Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., retired, Mr Lee became the senior magistrate in Christchurch. He became the senior magistrate in New Zealand when Mr Jenner Wily retired earlier this year. Since the centre opened two years ago 55 boys and youths have been sent to it When it was announced that the centre was to be in a bouse in a residential street there were many protests from those living at hand. However, since then some of the objectors have been lavish in their praise for the work being done at the centre, said Mr Lee. Asked his views on the Justive Department’s plan to establish an adult periodic detention centre in Christchurch, Mr Lee said the centre in Auckland had been achieving good he

had every reason to believe that a similar institution in Christchurch would succeed. The selection of offenders to be sent to the centre would require the greatest care. Questioned as to whether there were enough magistrates in Christchurch, Mr Lee said the demands made on a magistrate were very great, not only because of the work associated with the courts but also because of a great variety of other tribunals. “Generally speaking, court work here is not unreasonably delayed by a shortage of magistrates. During the last six to eight months there have been some delays because Mr G. A. Nicholls, S.M., who presides on the Nelson circuit, was overseas on sabbatical leave and after he returned to New Zealand he was taken ill. However, the situation should have righted itself by the end of the year," said Mr Lee.

Recently Parliament approved of an increase in the number of magistrates from 40 to 45 but it did not necessarily follow that these would be appointed immediately, Mr Lee said. The number of magistrates had risen from three in 1948 to five at present.

Mr Lee agreed that Children’s Court proceedings should be conducted away from ordinary court premises. There was now a special court in the Provincial Council Chambers for the Children’s Court and this had proved to be very satisfactory, he said.

“Many coming before this court are young louts charged

with burglary, car conversion, drunkenness, assaults and other serious crimes. “Some of these offenders earn more than their fathers and quite often to regard them as children is taking a very unrealistic view of the problem, ft is, I think significant that in the present year more young persons have been sent to the Periodic Detention Centre from the Children’s Court than from the Magistrate’s Court. “Sometimes one feels that the conduct of many of these young offenders and their consequent punishment deserves greater publicity than can be given in the Children’s Court,” Mr Lee said. He had no doubt that newspaper publicity made a most important contribution to the administration of justice, Mr Lee said. Apart from all other considerations the fact that the public became aware through newspaper reports

that offenders were being detected and prosecuted necessarily contributed a great deal towards public peace of mind. Publicity given to punishment quickly brought heed to the penalties. The improvement in the standard of conduct in Cathedral Square was clearly achieved by the stand

the Courts took and the publicity this received a few years ago. The coverage of the courts by the newspapers was of a very high standard, said Mr Lee.

With certain reservations, Mr Lee agreed that fines

could be better than imprisonment (t had never been the

policy of the New Zealand courts to send persons to prison unless the interests of justice demanded it. Asked for his views on sentences of less than six months, Mr Lee said the short-term sentence was often desirable and was frequently a salutary lesson. He had not seen It abused and it was rarely disturbed on appeal. This suggested that injustices rarely occurred. Sometimes the court was invited by counsel to consider a short term of imprisonment because the offender had no money to pay a fine. A number of offenders who were fined ultimately went to prison for the non-payment of the fine.

The service given by pro

bation officers was excellent. Mr Lee said. It was of the greatest importance that the courts should have as much information as possible about offenders—even regular offenders.

Not infrequently it was found that former regular offenders were making a determined effort to rehabilitate themselves but had made one lapse. To sentence such a person on his past record without giving credit for his recent improvement would be a great injustice, and quite often the report of the probation officer could persuade the court to grant a further chance.

The work of the probation officers had increased a great deal but he was not able to ,say whether more of these officers were needed, said Mr Lee.

Asked If more prison sentences would help check the wave of burglaries, Mr Lee replied: “Possibly the courts are being too lenient with first offenders for burglary. A few years ago a prison sentence for a first offence of burglary was almost inevitable.

“Today the courts prefer, I think, to see whether an offender cannot be made a useful member of society by supervision or other punishments short of imprisonment. Further offending, of course, is viewed differently: but many burglaries are committed by young persons who, because of lack of parental interest. really have never had

much chance to show their worth. In these cases the courts generally feel that probation should be tried first” There was definitely a need for the establishment of a tribunal to deal with traffic and minor offences so that the magistrates would have more time for more serious work, Mr Lee said. In spite of the introduction of standard fines for traffic offences the number of traffic charges coming before the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court had increased from 21,760 for 1966 to 24,994 for the first 10 months of this year.

Many more traffic charges were being defended, no doubt partly because a driver’s licence could be cancelled for many more offences. In recent years the jurisdiction of magistrates had been greatly extended in both criminal and civil cases. Broken homes and lack of parental control resulted in many young persons committing their first offence and started some on a life of crime, Mr Lee said. The Child Welfare Division, probation officers, the police juvenile crime prevention branch and teachers did their best but there were parents who never gave their children a proper home and the upbringing which would help make them decent and lawabiding citizens. “The pattern begins in the Children’s Court, where there has been a big increase in the number of cases: it goes into the domestic courts and

then finishes up in the Magistrate’s and Supreme Courts,” said Mr Lee. Anonymous abusive and threatening telephone calls and letters have been received by Mr Lee. Although this kind of thing did not happen very often it was very annoying to receive such a call late at night, he said. One very objectionable letter posted in Wellington was handed to the police. Although it was typewritten the man who wrote it was found within two days. When the Gaming CommisI sion heard evidence throughI out New Zealand to decide whether the Totalisator Agency Board should be set up Mr Lee acted as junior to Mr C. S. Thomas, who represented the trotting interests. Mr Lee was also chairman of the War Pension Commission. He is chairman of the Parole Boards for the Invercargill and Waipata Borstals. A keen tennis player in his young days, Mr Lee has represented Canterbury in lowergrade games. He also took a prominent part in the administration of the game, serving as chairman of the management committee of the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association and was a Canterbury selector with Messrs G. | Atkinson and A. R. Cant. He was a delegate to the New i Zealand Lawn Tennis Associa- [; tion. I <

Another of Mr Lee's sporting interests is bowling, a game at which he has had considerable success. On three

occasions he was a member of a team which won the provincial title. For a number of years he played in South Canterbury representative teams, and in partnership with Mr H. J. Washer won the South Canterbury champion of champion pairs. Mr Lee was in the team skipped by Mr H. P. Rennie which won the champion of champion fours and the Christmas fours. In the same year he reached the semifinals of the champion of champion pairs in partnership with Mr Rennie. Mr Lee plays for the Fendalton Bowling Club.

He has played In Canterbury representative teams for several years. When he was a youth Mr Lee was interested in athletics and did a lot of running in South Canterbury. Born of farming parents at Seafleld, South Canterbury, in 1899, Mr Lee was educated at a number of primary schools and at Pleasant Point District High School. He studied law while working for the Justice Department as a court clerk at Nelson and Timaru. In 1927 he was admitted as a solicitor in the Christchurch Supreme Court. For 21 years Mr Lee practised with the Christchurch firm of Clifford Jones and Lee. On his appointment to the bench in 1948 he served at Timaru. He relieved at Christchurch from 1951 and he was transferred to Christchurch in 1958. Mr and Mrs l<ee have two children.