SUPREME COURT Gaol for obscene language upheld

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32524, 6 February 1971, Page 17

SUPREME COURT Gaol for obscene language upheld

“This was an explosive situation and the deterrent aspect of the punishment is of more than the usual importance. The community has enough to bear without having to suffer the indignity of abuse from foul-mouthed louts, and that is what the appellant was on this day.” This was said by Mr Justice Roper in the Supreme Court yesterday when dismissing an appeal by Brian Edward O’Malley, aged 19, a fitter and turner, of Christchurch, against a sentence of one month’s imprisonment imposed in the Nelson Magistrate’s Court on a charge of using obscene language in the public bar of the Trout Hotel at Canvastown on December 29. Mr G. R. Lascelles, for the appellant, said that the magistrate had placed more emphasis on the circumstances and personality of those involved in the incident than on the offence itself. He had not called for a probation officer’s report.

For the Crown, Mr G. K. Panckhurst said that the language had been used after a request that it be stopped. A constable, who was in plain clothes, had made his identity known and had asked that the language be stopped. The magistrate was representing a community which was sensitive to this type of behaviour during the holiday period. Trouble of the same kind was liable to flare up again. At the time of the offence the appellant was one of a group of motor-cyclists of the Hell’s Angels variety, his Honour said. He agreed with Mr Lascelles that any question of defiance of the police was hardly relevant to the charge. As Mr Panckhurst had pointed out, the offence had occurred after a warning.

He was satisfied' that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, said his Honour. Application refused An application by Peter William Ewing, aged 36, a construction worker (Mr M. J. Glue), for leave to appeal out of time against a sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed in the Invercargill Magistrate’s Court on charges of forging and uttering a Post Office Savings Bank withdrawal slip for $4OO was refused. Mr Glue said that Ewing had settled down to regular employment. Drink had caused trouble to Ewing and he had been drinking throughout the day the offence was committed. He also had some trouble with his de facto wife, who suspected he was having an affair with another woman. The offence had no chance of success. Mr Panckhurst, for the Crown, said that Ewing had 25 convictions for offences involving dishonesty. The offence was deliberate and involved three visits to the Post Office. His Honour said that Ewing had got possession of a Post Office Savings Bank passbook and tried to withdraw $4OO. The crime involved thought and planning. The probation officer had said that Ewing was an inadequate individual. In his opinion the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate, and leave to appeal was refused.

Appeal fails An appeal by John Robert Snowden, aged 23, a truckdriver, against a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court on a charge of burglary of the Aronde Dairy in Victoria Street on December 9 was dismissed. Mr I. J. D. Hall, for the appellant, said that Snowden had a long list of offences, but except for one charge of receiving had had no convictions for dishonesty since 1965. The burglary was committed on the spur of the moment. Snowden had been

drinking heavily and he wanted goods for his family for Christmas. He intended to give up drinking. His Honour said that goods worth $576 were stolen and property worth $lOO had not been recovered. It was some time since the appellant had been before the Court for dishonesty, but he had an appalling list of convictions for a person aged 23. Burglary was a prevalent offence and the appellant needed to be brought up with a round turn.