“FLOUTING THE LAW”

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32222, 14 February 1970, Page 18

“FLOUTING THE LAW”

; Maximum Term Confirmed “What can you do with a young man who keeps limiting the authority of the law?” said Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday when dismissing an appeal by John Charles Henry, aged 20, a wool hand (Mr R. F A. Powell), against six months imprisonment for driving while disqualified Henry, an Invercargill appellant, had argued, through counsel, that the maximum sentence of six months inii prisonment for the offence [ should not have been im- ! posed. His Honour said: “This [ young man has had every opportunity, and has been extended considerable leniency ■ in the past in the face of re- • peated and flagrant defiance of the Court's order not to drive. 1 cannot imagine any I other adequate punishment which is likely to bring him to a sense of responsibility than the maximum punistii ment provided.” Indecent Assault An appeal by Arthur Alan Falloon, aged 57, a toilet attendant (Mr M. J. Gluei, against nine months imprison[ment for indecently assaulting a boy of 13 was also dis- [ missed. His Honour ordered that one year’s probation i should follow the prison I term. [ Mr Glue submitted that the [ magistrate, in passing sent- [ ence, had been influenced by evidence that Falloon had given money to the boy—and had put his own construction on that. In fact, said Mr [Glue, the appellant was adamant that the boy—who appellant said frequented the Cathedral Square toilets—had pestered him for money. His Honour said that the sentence could not be described as excessive, even given that appellant’s version be accepted—which the magistrate had not, “and I don't either,” said his Honour. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the assault, yet his very presence at the toilets as an attendant should have been to discourage homosexuals resorting there.