Woman sobs as her appeal is dismissed

Press, 3 September 1986, Page 5

Woman sobs as her appeal is dismissed

Sobbing and objecting a young pregnant woman called out “I won’t go,” as she left the High Court yesterday, to begin two months in prison. Glenda Margaret Dickie, aged 19, was originally sentenced in the District Court at Oamaru to four months periodic detention on a charge of burglary and three charges of driving while disqualified. She had attended the work centre only four times out of the 13 times she should have been there, Mr Justice Greig was told. Yesterday, for the first time, Dickie claimed sexual harrassment by her male supervisor as one reason for nbt attending. No evidence had been given on the allegation, but she had instructed her counsel to that effect. His Honour said the allegation was quite improper, but he would not hold that against Dickie on her appeal. After Dickie left the Court, she could be heard ranting against her lawyer, the judge aqd the

policewoman who was escorting her. She shouted to the policewoman: "I’m not going to prison. I’ll die before you take me there.” Mr Alister James, for Dickie, said that she was three months pregnant and had since married the father. She also suffered from a kidney infection. Dickie alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by the supervising officer at periodic detention, because he had warned her of the dangers of promiscuity and contracting venereal disease. She regarded that as an invasion of her privacy. Counsel asked for a further term of supervision to be imposed. Mr Timothy Allan, for the Crown, strenuously opposed that. There had been no alternative to imprisonment after Dickie had consistently flouted the terms of periodic detention. The allegations against her supervisor at the work centre were completely unfounded. He was a married man with 20 years experience with the

Justice Department. At least six times Dickie had produced medical certificates obtained on the Friday to excuse her from attending on the Saturday. She was obviously manipulating the system, and treating the Court and the sentence with contempt. There also had to be reservations about her hasty marriage. If the two-months jail term was upheld, Dickie would be released before her baby was born, said Mr Allan. Mr Justice Greig said that after Dickie failed to fulfil the terms of periodic detention, the probation officer applied for a review of her sentence. It was apparent from Dickie’s list of convictions that she had refused to heed the warnings she had been given and the assistance she had been offered. She had been given probation and other lenient sentences, but she continued to offend. The probation reports indicated that she needed strict control if she was to achieve some social responsibility. It had been said that her marriage would provide some stability in her life but he had some grave misgivings about that. Re-sentencing was always a difficult matter, because the offender had already undergone some punishment. Dickie had treated the sentence of periodic detention with indifference. It would have been inappropriate for the District Court Judge to have imposed a fine or a com-munity-based sentence when he re-sentenced Dickie. A jail term was the correct course and two months could not be considered excessive. “The appeal is dismissed and Dickie will have to serve her sentence,” Mr Justice Greig said.