Term Of Imprisonment Reduced To Three Months

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31906, 6 February 1969, Page 8

Term Of Imprisonment Reduced To Three Months

A sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on Michael Eddy Pomana, aged 25, a labourer, on a charge of assault with intent to injure was varied on appeal to Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday to one of three months imprisonment.

The appellant, for whom Mr K. N. Hampton appeared, had been sentenced in the Magistrate’s Court to six months imprisonment, followed by one year's probation, on a charge of assaulting Edward Albert Smith on December 14. with intent to injure him. Mr W S. Smith appeared for the Crown.

Mr Hampton said the appellant was not represented at the time of his conviction, and it was perhaps unfortunate that he had pleaded guilty. The appellant at no time denied his involvement, but. the Magistrate took too stern a view of the matter having regard to the part Pomana had olayed, Mr Hampton said. “The appellant instructs me he had been drinking most of the morning in the complainant’s hotel and was to some extent under the influence of liquor when the assault took (place.” Mr Hampton said. "When leaving the hotel he saw one of his companions being accosted by the complainant. Without premeditation, he pushed into him and struck two blows with his fists.”

Mr Hampton said that the (appellant maintained that he caused none of the grave injuries which the complainant I suffered. They were caused ■ during the later intervention ; of other persons, who kicked the complainant while he was on the ground. “The charge of assault arose from his feeling of loyalty to a friend and his going to his assistance." Mr Hampton said the appellant had convictions over the last eight years for disorderly behaviour, burglary, and arson, but he had no record of violence. Mr Smith said the Magistrate must have had regard to the serious injuries suffered by the complainant who' had been totally incapacitated for six weeks.

His Honour said the appellant had intervened when an argument developed between his companion and the complainant over missing beer glasses. The appellant had charged the complainant from behind, knocked him to the ground, and punched him about the head. “After that the complainant suffered other injuries from the boot of some person.

“The proper attitude is to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt on later events,” his Honour said. The sentence shoi-lu be commensurate with what he is known for certain to have done.” His Honour said he could find no evidence of a tendency to violence in the appellant’s record. Threatening Words An appeal against conviction by Richard Bernard McKernan, aged 46, a fishmonger, on a charge of using threatening words to a constable in Geraldine Street on September 3 was dismissed. The complainant had been convicted and ordered to come up for sentence within six months if called upon. The appellant, who conducted his own case, said his solicitor in the Lower Court acted against his instructions in not raising a defence of assault by the police when they grabbed him as he stepped out of his car. “I get very excited when annoyed in this way, either with drink or without,” the appellant said. He said he had a medical history since breaking his neck, a certificate to support which had not been presented by his solicitor.

His Honour said there was plenty of evidence to prove that McKernan had used the threatening language, took what you say into consideration when sentencing

you. He imposed virtually no penalty,” his Honour said. “I don’t deny using the words. I was provoked, and did my block,” McKernan said.

His Honour said provocation was no defence. Assault An appeal against conviction by Brian Lloyd Jones, aged 30, a social security beneficiary, on a charge of assaulting Maureen Lorraine Forde on October 10 last, was dismissed. “You are properly convicted because you admitted the offence on oath,” his Honour said. “You are fortunate you were treated by way of fine, and not imprisonment. If you come before the Court again

on a charge of assault, you will certainly go to prison.” Borstal Training

An appeal against sentence of Borstal training by Kenneth Sydney Johns, aged 18, a tailor, who did not appear, was dismissed. The sentence had been imposed on three charges of car conversion and one charge of breach of probation. His Honour said Johns had a deplorably long list of previous convictions. “He has had two periods in Borstal before and has failed utterly and completely to respond to leniency or keep his hands from other people's goods. It is clear he is in need of further institutional training,” he said.