Man Gaoled For 5 Years

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32274, 17 April 1970, Page 22

Man Gaoled For 5 Years

(N.Z. Press Association) AUCKLAND, April 16. “I think the main duty I have is to protect the public from your depredations for a reasonably long period,” said Mr Justice Richmond today, in sentencing Frederick Bradnam, aged 46, a drainlayer, to five years gaol on each of two burglary charges, and to two years on other charges, the terms to be concurrent. Bradnam had pleaded guilty in the Lower Court to 23 charges of burglary and two of unlawfully taking cars. The charges covered from

June, 1969, to February, 1970, in the Swanson, Henderson, Auckland, Waikato and Ohakune areas.

His counsel, Mr H. M. Romaniuk, said that Bradnam was one of a trio involved in a rampage of burglary. The others were Bradnam’s son and another youth, both aged 20. He .said that the mind would’probably be very easily drawn to the conclusion that Bradnam was the “villain of the piece—the rotten apple." Bradnam might have been the rotten core initially, but he had strong paternal feelings and had tried to teach his sons that tile course he had pursued in life had not been the right one. He had tried to talk his son and the other youth out of offending. Bradnam had gone along because he was frightened that something would go wrong with bis son, counsel said—-that they might be carried away with their exuberance and might get caught.

Bradnam took no material part in the burglaries, although he admitted that he had kept watch and on occasions had planned things so they would not get caught. In a misplaced sense of fatherly duty, Bradnam’s attitude was to try to keep them out of trouble.

The Judge said that he un-

derstood Bradnam accepted full responsibility for burglaries in June and August, but that in the later ones, Bradnam said he participated not as the instigator, but was drawn into them so he could “keep an eye on them.” Because of his age and because he was the father of one of the youths, Bradnam would have to take full responsibility in these matters, the Judge said. It was disturbing that there was no evidence of Bradnam making any real effort to earn an honest living by means of his trade.

“The impression of the probation officer is that your preoccupation with gambling and heavy drinking results in a desire to get easy money in order to cater to these particular weaknesses which you apparently suffer from,” he said.

“I find it very hard to see that there is much hope of your reformation in the foreseeable future, but it is quite clear to me . . . that you are a menace to the community. “If you are again before the courts, I am afraid you will get into the position of a person where the almost exclusive consideration of the court will be to impose a long finite sentence, really preventive in nature, for the protection of the public.”