CHILDREN’S COURT Youths Sentenced On Robbery Charges

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31784, 14 September 1968, Page 16

CHILDREN’S COURT Youths Sentenced On Robbery Charges

“You are the worst young thug I have met . . ." Mr K. H. J. Headifen, S.M., told a 16-year-old youth when he appeared in the Children's Count yesterday for sentence. The Magistrate imposed a sentence of borstal training on charges of robbing Leonard James Conlan, on September 3, of a suitcase containing $45 in cash and lottery tickets, the theft on August 28 from Conlan of a suitcase and lottery tickets of a total value of $ll3, assaulting John Norman Bissett on April 5, unlawfully taking a car worth $l4O on August 5 and breaking and entering a service station belonging to Roiley Melville Andrews at 71 Cranford Street on September 1.

Mr R. J. Allan, for the youth, said there were precedents for not imprisoning youthful offenders but in all the circumstances it did appear some form of detention was in order.

On the other hand, there was the question of balancing the need for a deterrent sentence against the youth’s future. The most serious offence was the robbery in which the youth had hit the man on the head several times with a spanner. The offence had been premeditated.

The youth showed he was drifting into a life of crime and needed reform. The Court was left with a difficult choice of either imposing a prison sentence or one of borstal training. It had been said it was preferable to send youthful offenders to borstal instead of prison. The difficulty with a prison sentence was a need to keep the youthful offender apart from more adult offenders but that was not always possible. He could, with a prison term, be confirmed in a life of crime by older offenders.

However, a term of borstal training lasted for up to two years and there he would meet others with more criminal expertise. It could be said that the disadvantages in each case applied equally. On the defendant’s behalf, he submitted that the best course, and one which would satisfy the public interest as well as show the Court’s displeasure, was to impose a short term of imprisonment followed by probation.

That course would cut the risk of the youth being confirmed in a life of crime through the influence of others. Magistrate's Comments The Magistrate said that under the Criminal Justice Act he was directed not to imprison youthful offenders unless all the circumstances warranted such a course.

He had given long considerstian to whether he should impose a sentence of imprisonment or borstal training and he took regard of the fact that if a term of imprisonment was imposed the youth could serve that term at a borstal. ”1

have decided somewhat reluctantly not to impose a sentence of two years imprisonment.’’

With regard to the youth’s character, personal history and all the circumstances, if an offence warranted imprteonment this was such an offence, he said.

“You are the worst young thug I have met or dealt with." In July, 1966, the youth was admonished and discharged on a burglary charge. In January, 1968, he was placed under supervision on charges of wilful damage and ill-treatment of an animal. In July he appeared on three serious charges of unlawfully taking a motorscooter, assault and burglary. The Court had given the youth every possible chance. The Court on one occasion had swallowed a tale that the youth was going to join the Army.

On August 28. after watching where Conlan left his suitcase, the youth had stolen his takings. On September 2 the youth applied for bail and the Court had gone to the length of warning him of the danger of further offending while on bail and the very next day he had proceeded to rob Conlan, a man aged 60. He had hit the man on the head with a spanner in broad daylight. "Is it any wonder I describe you as the worst young thug 1 have met and I publicly predict a long criminal career for you.”

The youth had been placed under supervision, sponged on the community instead of getting a job and had been granted bail and the next day had hit a man over the head. He had also had a stand-over man nearby in case he needed assistance. “If this is not the worst kind of offence I don't know what would be. I think it's fair to tell you I will make an un-, favourable report to the Borstal parole board as my duty is to put you away for as long as possible.” SECOND YOUTH A youth aged 15 (Mr J. E. Butler) was fined $3OO and put on probation for three years when he appeared for sentence on charges of robbing Conlan and of theft from him. Mr Butler asked the Magistrate to consider the youth’s age, background and intelligence. It was the youth's first Court appearance, and it was really a case of a weak youth acting under the influence of extremely bad company. He had known the theft was to occur, but had not known of the violence intended. Once! the offence was committed he! had gone away and had received nothing.

Borstal was not appropriate, and would be disastrous with its attendant pressures and influences.

The. Magistrate said the youth was a first offender, but what disturbed him was that the youth had been standing by to assist the other youth if he needed assistance, and the question was whether, if the other youth had needed assistance, he would have given it. The Magistrate said he was faced with a difficult situation. The youth’s school record was poor, he was in bad health, had a physical disability, and

was of poor intelligence which prevented sentences at a detention centre or a periodic detention centre. In his view the youth should not remain in Christchurch. “I tell you that I regard robbery with abhorrence. Already a number of people have suffered serious injury, not only in Christchurch but throughout New Zealand. I intend to stamp it out in Christchurch, even if a few people such as you suffer. My duty is to the public and not to consider any person like you.” The youth had robbed a man of money he possibly needed. That man was unable to defend himself from types such as the youth. The Magistrate, in attaching strict conditions to the term of probation, said the youth would get no further chance if he appeared again on a charge involving violence. YOUTH REMANDED A youth, aged 13, who appeared on two charges of theft on September 5, was remanded in the custody of the Child Welfare Department until November 15. The Magistrate said that in the meantime he would call for psychological reports from the Department of Education. The youth was charged with the theft of a change purse, a cheque form, and $4 in cash, the property of Theresa Lillian Nicholl, 376 Durham Street, and two pairs of leather gloves, valued at $10.50, the property of the Butler Cycle and Motor Company. Ltd. Sergeant V. F. Townshend said that on September 5 Miss Nicholl had gone out of her flat in Durham Street, leaving the front door open. On her return she had found a youth coming out of the flat. He had drawn a knife and had said. “Where’s the thing.” She had later gone inside and had found a change purse, a cheque for $9 and $4 in cash missing. I At 2 a.m. the next morning : two constables on duty in the city had approached the youth, but he had run off, said Sergeant Townshend. A short time later they had approached him again. The youth had admitted to the theft and said that he had thrown everything away but the cash, which he had apent. He had also admitted to presenting the knife to the complainant. and said that he had done this to frighten her. A pair of leather gloves found in the youth’s possession were found to have been stolen from a shop in Armagh Street.