SUPREME COURT Decision Reserved On Appeal Against Sentence

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31652, 11 April 1968, Page 8

SUPREME COURT Decision Reserved On Appeal Against Sentence

Decision was reserved by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday on an. appeal by Ruth Pearce, aged 41, a housewife (Mr P. G. S. Penlington), against a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court on February 28. The appellant had been convicted and sentenced on four charges of theft as a servant of Hay's, Ltd, of sums of money totalling $11,990.18 between December, 1964, and September, 1967.

Mr Penlington said the appellant joined the company in 1961, and was appointed credit interviewer in 1964. She had control of 16 trays of hirepurchase ledger cards, the accounting machine, and the master control book. He conceded the appellant had skilfully manipulated the accounting system, but submitted the fact that she had control of the cards, machine and master book meant the flrm had broken one of the cardinal rules of money handling. “Temptation was thrown at her by her being able to have access to the full system. She admitted to the police she was unable to say how much she had taken, but she accepted responsibility for all the deficiency," said Mr Penlington. He submitted the Magistrate's sentence was excessive because of the appellant's age, her three children under her care, the fact that she was a first offender, and because the sentence was out of line with sentences imposed in similar circumstaances by the

Supreme Court within the last three years. "There should be some measure of consistency in cases of the same type,” said Mr Penlington. He submitted that insufficient weight had been given to some of the features disclosed by psychologists. Her over-indulgence as a child, instability, tendency to overindulge her own children, and her ability to rationalise any given situation had emerged from her character. Since the imposition of the

sentence, Hay’s, Ltd, had issued a writ for $11,990.18, and the appellant had signed a confession of claim. Her husband, a life insurance salesman, had negotiated a policy for $6OOO on bis life, and had agreed to assign it to Hay’s, Ltd. His Honour said the appellant had adopted a well thought out and cunning system made possible by a stupidly lax control of the accounting system. For the Crown. Mr N. W. Williamson said the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It was clear from the Magistrate’s notes he had given great care to consideration of the sentence. Failed To Appear “The only question I ask about this sentence is, 'was it long enough?”* his Honour said when considering an appeal by Jay Ralph Nevill McConnell, aged 28, a cook, against a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed in the Invercargill Magistrate's Court on March 7.

The appellant, who did not appear, and was not represented, had been convicted on charges of theft as a servant, receiving, and keeping liquor for sale. His appeal was dismissed and the sentence confirmed.

“It is perhaps fortunate for the appellant that he has not appeared. If he had appeared he would have had to bring very powerful arguments to show why the sentence should not be increased.” his Honour said. Dismissed An appeal by James Gardiner McCall, aged 25, unemployed (Mr R. F. B. Perry), against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court on March 15 on charges of burglary, false pretences and wilful damage was dismissed. Mr Perry said although the offences were serious they were stupid in the extreme and the appellant gained little from them.

"They could properly be regarded as the result of a drinking bout, and were committed on the night he was released from custody and on the following night,” he said. His Honour said the appellant had a record which did not help him. He had been on probation and in prison.