Egg-throwing appeal fails

Press, 26 July 1986, Page 1

Egg-throwing appeal fails

PA Auckland A High Court judge yesterday dismissed an appeal against the six-month prison sentences given to two women who threw eggs at the Queen. Deborah Jane Leyland, aged 22, of Avondale, and Ann Marie Thorby, aged 21, of Mount Eden, appealed to the High Court at Auckland after their conviction and sentence in May on a charge of assaulting the Queen. In the District Court at Auckland, Judge Lawson had given the pair the maximum penalty of six months jail on the charge, which arose after they threw eggs at the Queen at Ellerslie racecourse on February 24. In Court yesterday defence counsel, Ms Ailsa Duffy, said her clients contended that the sentences were harsh and excessive. Alternatively, she said, the District Court judge had not considered all circumstances and mitigating factors. After a 2>/ 2 hour hearing, Mr Justice Henry dismissed the appeal, saying the sentences were undoubtedly severe but not clearly excessive.

Prison officers then led Thorby and a weeping Leyland from the Court, leaving friends and family, including Thorby’s parents, visibly shaken. In his ruling, his Honour said the District Court judge had considered four main factors in determining the sentence. They included the planned and premeditated attack on the Queen in the course of her official duties and the lack of regret shown by the two women until late in the court proceedings. The other factors were the danger to some of the 45,000 schoolchildren at Ellerslie posed by a possible police retaliation to the attack and the need for a deterrent penalty to

discourage similar or worse attacks.

Mr Justice Henry said the factors were all highly relevant to the sentence, but it was the deterrent factor which was the overriding one. ; . “Put in perspective I do not think this incident can be viewed as a simple egg-throwing incident,” he said.

"It was carried out against the Queen of New Zealand and I do not think it can be viewed in the same light as a similar attack on any other person.”

His Honour said the attack was inexcusable, unjustifiable, and an intentional affront to the Queen, designed to achieve impact for a political protest. “It is, of course, sometimes unfortunate that particular individuals must bear the brunt of a deterrent penalty, but that must happen from time to time. “I do not think in today’s conditions that the days of protests are over.” Mitigating factors such as the women’s previous good behaviour and attested good characters, the fact that they 'were both now employed and were following their strong political ideals, did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence.

The District Court judge had given full consideration to those factors, said his Honour.

Earlier, Ms Duffy said the Queen’s status should not have been paid special regard in the sentencing. She cited a 1982 egg attack on the GovernorGeneral where the offender was placed on an 18-month good-behaviour bond as an example of the severity of her clients’ sentences. .

Ms Duffy also produced affidavits testifying to the good character of both women, adding that since the offence Thorby had found a job as a librarian which she would lose At sent to jail. ?

However, the, Crown Prosecutor, Mr Peter Kaye, said the District Court judge had already given full weight, to the personal backgrounds bf both women.

Mr Kaye said that if police action failed to prevent public figures being assaulted the only protection left was the sanction of the courts. r- ■