Youth let off lightly,’ says judge

Press, 24 February 1977, Page 8

Youth let off lightly,’ says judge

A youth, aged 16, charged with the thett of a motorcycle from the car park at the University of Canterbury appeared to have been dealt with by the Children and Young Persons Court with “extraordinary lenience,” Mr

Justice Casey said in the Supreme Court yesterday. His Honour dismissed an appeal by another youth, aged 17, whose name was suppressed, against a sentence imposed by Mr N. L. Bradford, S.M., in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court on November 18. He had pleaded guilty to being a party to the theft of a motor-cycle valued at $4OO, and was fined $250 and had his driver’s licence cancelled for 18 months. A few days later the principal offender, the 16-year-old, appeared before Mr W. F. Brown, S.M., in the Children and Young Persons Court on a charge of stealing the same motor-cycle. He was ordered to do 16 hours community work, make restitution of $lOO, and his driver’s licence was cancelled for six months. Mr B. D. Kinley, for the appellant, said that when his client was sentenced in the Magistrate’s Court not all the facts were before the Court. The appellant had played no part in stripping the machine, but had made it possible for the principal offender to take the motorcycle by starting it for him and driving his car. He had also painted the petrol tank. The appellant came from a most respected family and this was his first offence. It was most unlikely that he would ever offend again, so a deterrent sentence was not called for. Since the disqualification the appellent, who was interested in dirt-track riding, had not even ridden his machine on private property as he was entitled to. When the Magistrate imposed the sentence he had no knowledge of the penalty which was to be inflicted on the principal offender. The appellant’s sentence was out of all proportion to that imposed on the principal offender, said Mr Kinley. His Honour said that the motor-cycle had been taken from the car park at the University of Canterbury. The appellant started the motor-cycle and helped alter its appearance. It was clear that without his help the theft would not have been possible, and he also helped to make the detection of the offence more difficult by alterations to the machine.

The appellent had not been in any previous trouble, but taking all into account he w’ould be reluctant to interfere with the penalty — which, taken by itself, seemed appropriate. The theft of motor-vehicles,

including motor-cycles, was far too prevalent in Christchurch and such offending had to be deterred, his Honour said. The main basis of the appeal was the disparity between the sentence on the appellant, who was charged with being a party to the offence, and the one imposed on the principal offender by the Children and Young Persons-Court. The principal offender appeared to have been dealt with with extraordinary leniency, and he did not know why such a penalty was imposed. Both boys were of similar age. “It seems to me to be an extraordinary way of dealing with the major offender in a quite serious theft,” said his Honour. The real question was whether the interests of justice, which included confidence in the administration of the criminal law, required him to interfere with the sentence on the appellant — which in ordinary circumstances he would find to be quite appropriate. “This is a matter which has given me some concern. However, in this case I think it would be quite wrong to alter the penalty simply because some other Magistrate, for reasons which may or may not be justified, has seen fit to treat the other party in the crime with extraordinary leniency,” his Honour said. There might be the situation where the impartial administration of justice required an alteration to a sentence, which on the surface appeared appropriate, but only in circumstances which might be described as an “outrageous discrepancy” between sentences. That did not appear to apply in this case, especially when it was considered that the other offender was dealt with in the Children and Young Persons Court, where the quality of mercy and leniency was invoked with a great deal more freedom than in other courts. “Under these circumstances, while the matter has given me some concern, I feel I cannot interfere with the sentence and the appeal is dismissed,” said his Honour.