SUPREME COURT Judge quashes sentence of imprisonment

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33189, 31 March 1973, Page 17

SUPREME COURT Judge quashes sentence of imprisonment

A sentence of 14 days imprisonment imposed on James Keith Maclaren, aged 69, a sign writer, in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, : was quashed on appeal to Mr ■ Justice Roper in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour substituted fori

the prison term a fine of I $2OO. Maclaren, who had a I blood-alcohol level of 155: milligrams, appealed against: sentence. Mr C. A. McVeigh, for the ; appellant, said that the] Magistrate had not called for] a probation officer’s report: and had not been aware of : Maclaren’s medical condition. There was no accident, i and the blood-alcohol level was not high. Maclaren had :been apprehended after 'delivering a sign to a hotel.; His Honour said that this] ] was the appellant’s second: ] conviction for this type of :offence, the first being in] ;December, 1971 —but he had; no other conviction. His Honour said that he i applauded the Magistrate’s attempt to reduce the road I toll and to discourage driving under the influence of ] liquor. However, the appellant was 69 and the Magistrate had not been aware that he was suffering from I a serious disease which required regular treatment. In jthe circumstances, said his ; Honour, he thought the sentence inappropriate. APPEAL DISMISSED An appeal by Faisal Ahmed Dawoodjee, aged 25, against conviction and sen- • tence in the Magistrate’s Court, on a charge that being a prohibited immigrant he landed in New Zealand, was dismissed by his Honour. Dawoodjee, who was born ]in Rangoon and who describes himself as a student, • was fined $lOO in the Magistrate's Court and was i ordered to be held in custody pending deportation. Mr E. J. Higgins appeared I for Dawoodjee, and Mr G. IK. Panckhurst for the Crown. • Mr Higgins submitted that the appellant had not landed

unlawfully in New Zealand ; because he had obtained ai ‘permit to remain in the ] country until April 8. The ! appellant, when applying for [the permit, had disclosed his I correct name and address •and had produced his passport. “In granting a temporary peHnit to the appellant, the authorities were estopped from denying the validity of the permit which had not been revoked,” Mr Higgins • said. His Honour said that the; 'appellant had arrived in | New Zealand on March 5. He had been deported from 'New Zealand after convictions on a number of ] charges, including one in-] volving narcotics, in Decern-I ber, 1972. When he returned! to New Zealand, he had] obtained a permit and had] not tried to mislead the j officer as to his identity—l but it was obvious that he| had not disclosed that he, had been previously deported. When the appellant [ landed, he was a prohibited immigrant; and whether he obtained a permit by legitimate or illegitimate means did not purge the offence. Once the appellant landed, he was in breach of the law, 'and nothing which subsequently happened could alter that, his Honour said.