Receivers sentenced

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32679, 7 August 1971, Page 5

Receivers sentenced

Stewart Cameron Turvey, aged 27, unemployed, was imprisoned for two years when he appeared before the Chief Justice (Sir Richard Wild) in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence on a charge of receiving three electric heaters and two desk fans valued at $B9 when he knew they had been dishonestly obtained. Mr E. T. Higgins, for the prisoner, said that the stolen property was found in the premises in which Turvey was living. In 1962 Turvey was convicted on . a minor matter and he did not offend again until 1968, but in September of last year he started a series of serious offences and had appeared before the Court at three-monthly intervals. The prisoner had lost his way socially in the community. He was married, but it was not a stable relationship. His wife had stuck behind him. They had four children. Turvey was unemployed because he had lost

his job because of his offences. Counsel asked that if a prison term was to be imposed it be a short one, because while Turvey was in prison his wife and children would be a burden on the State.

“As Mr Hampton has pointed out, you have been before the Court three times within the last 12 months on serious offences—burglary, false pretences, and now receiving stolen property,” his Honour said. "You have rejected the opportunities you have/ been given with lenient sentences in the past, and now you must get your deserts,” his Honour said.

Fine and probation Helen Gladys Malzard, aged 41, married, a machinist, was fined $2OO and. admitted to probation for two years when she appeared for sentence on a charge of receiving $91.25 from Robert Trevor Ryan when she knew the money had been dishonestly obtained. An order was made that the fine be paid under the direction of the probation officer. Mr M. G. L. Loughnan, for the prisoner, said that it was her first appearance before the Court. The .offence was completely out of character and resulted when she was tempted with a fairly easy way out when she was in difficulties.

While the Court viewed receiving seriously, because it* was said that if there were no receivers there would be no thieves, the circumstances were different in this case because the goods received, money, had a ready outlet in anybody’s hands. Probation could well meet the ends of justice, Mr Loughnan said. “Mrs Malzard, the offence of which you have been convicted, is a serious one; but, as your counsel has said, this case is not the same as many are,” said his Honour. “I am sure you realise the seriousness of the situation you have put yourself in, and I hope you never come before the Court again.”