SUPREME COURT Man imprisoned on 48 charges of dishonesty

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33778, 26 February 1975, Page 13

SUPREME COURT Man imprisoned on 48 charges of dishonesty

A man, who had about j $BOOO worth of stolen pro-i perty seized by the police when a search warrant was executed on his home, was gaoled for two years and a i half by Mr Justice Mac-' arthur in the Supreme Court yesterday on 39 charges of theft, two of burglary, and one of theft as a servant. Half an hour later the man, Robert Walker, aged .31. an unemployed process worker, appeared before Mr E. S. J.j Crutchley, S.M., in the Mag-: istrate’s Coart and was sen-; tenced to three months im-i prisonment. to be served con-) currently with the term imposed in the Supreme Court, on five charges of theft. He' was convicted and dischargedi on one charge of theft. The; charges involved the theft of I property valued at $lO or less.

Most of the theft charges, related to property taken' from cars and garages, the burglary charges to the I homes of David Reynolds in j Oriana Crescent, and Peter; Andrew Martelli in Hayward) Terrace, and the theft as a; ;servant charge to property) taken from P.D.L. Industries,' Ltd.

Walker pleaded guilty to 48 charges in the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate declined jurisdiction on all but six of the charges, and committed him to the Sunreme Court for sentence.

Mr D. J. L. Saunders apl peared for the Crown. Mr G. S. Brockett, for Walker, said that the of- | fences arose from a deepseated personality problem. The thefts were not com-, mitted for gain. For the last three years Walker had been i stable, but in July of last year the spate of offences was triggered off by maintenance proceedings. Walker had pleaded guilty to all the charges and had co-operated with the police in attempts made to trace the ownership of the stolen property. He claimed that in several -of the charges the value given for the propertystolen was in excess of the value of the same goods in a retail shop. He said that the; value of the goods had been' inflated. Walker had been in cus-! tody since December 5. In recent weeks he had become much more sensible, and he; now appreciated his problem. He had been known to the' Child Welfare and Probation services since 1960. Previously he had thought that it was up to other persons toj solve his problems, now he realised that it was he who; had to do something about i them.

The part of the police i statement of facts which said [that Walker had had a radio ■ at his home which he used to monitor the police radio band so that he could carry out his criminal activities with greater ease was denied by Walker. His Honour said that Walker had told the police that he had listened to the police radio.

Mr Brockett said that Walker denied making that statement. His Honour said that since Walker had been

committed to the Supreme i Court for sentence in December he had been remanded to Sunnyside Hospital for a psychiatric report The offences, were committed between June and December, 1974. The probation officer saw the thefts not as the common type with monetary gain as the object. No attempt had been made to sell or pass the stolen property on to a receiver. The psychiatric report said that Walker was not suffering from any psychotic complaint but from a deep-seated personality disorder. When under stress he relieved tension by committing thefts and other impulsive crimes. Quoting from the psychiatric report his Honour said: “Deep psychotherapy is not practical and hospital treatment not suitable. Counselling or group therapy in prison should be available ifi he is prepared to unbend and utilise the opportunity for 'guidance and self-control in

;the future. He is fit for sentence.” He would give as much weight as he could to the j evidence of some diminished responsibility, to Walker's pleading guilty, and to his co-operation with the police in tracing the -owners of the stolen goods, his Honour said. “But I conclude that in the public interest the Court has no option but to impose a substantial term of imprisonment. The range of the offences, the period of time over which they were committed. and the amount of property involved are such that the case demands that, you should be imprisoned The protection of the public must be considered.” said his Honour. After imposing sentence,; his Honour said: “I think that your case is an unusual one. The Secretary for Justice ;might well see fit to bring the ease before the Prisons Parole Board at an appropriate time.”