Appeal against jail term fails

Press, 12 March 1985, Page 4

Appeal against jail term fails

A man, who threw a beer bottle through the bar window of the Chertsey Tavern, and a rock through the window of a nearby house where there were four children, has had his three months prison sentence confirmed by Mr Justice Holland in the High Court.

Kenneth John Jamieson, aged 35, unemployed, appealed against the jail term imposed by Judge Hay in the District Court after a defended hearing. Two charges of causing intentional damage and one of threatening to damage the Chertsey Tavern were denied by Jamieson. In addition to the jail sentence Jamieson was ordered to pay compensation of $297 to John Christian Arps whose window he smashed, and $5O to Edgar Wyse Smith, the tavernkeeper. Jamieson and his friends were ordered out of the Chertsey Tavern by the police on September 15 after a pool table and a juke box were damaged. Less than an hour later a bottle was hurled through the bar window.

A rock W’as flung through the window of one of Arps’s children’s bedroom, smashing a china ornament. For Jamieson, Mr A. N. D. Garrett said that the Judge had imposed the maximum term of three months for offences not at the top end of the scale. His Honour said that Jamieson had given evidence at the hearing and the District Court Judge had not believed him. There were no grounds for interfering with the three convictions, he found. Counsel’s submission that the Judge had imposed the maximum term overlooked the fact that there were three offences and the max-

imum term for all would have been nine months jail. “No grounds could possibly exist to suggest that Jamieson’s behaviour did not warrant three months imprisonment, when one considers his record. He has at least six convictions for assault and three for wilful damage. His record is appalling. "Only two years ago he was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment following an assault on a publican after an order banning him from a hotel. This Court chose to allow the indulgence by changing the jail term for a fine,” said his Honour. That course had been adopted then because Jamieson had been able to

pay a fine which he could not do when before the District Court. His father had just died and it had been submitted that he had had a good relationship with the woman he was living with and with his child. It was suggested that he was showing signs of maturity. “When I allowed Jamieson’s appeal I said: ‘He must know he is very fortunate indeed, and no matter how right he might feel he must never resort to violence again because he should never get another opportunity.’ He has taken little heed of that leniency and I am satisfied that the sentence of three months imprisonment is an appropriate one,” his Honour said.