PROBATION OUT OF THE QUESTION

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 190, 14 May 1928, Page 3

PROBATION OUT OF THE QUESTION

LAW CLERK SENTENCED

REFORMATIVE DETENTION FOR TWO YEARS

Reformative detention for a period not exceeding two years was the sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court on Saturday on Gordon Lewis Keene, a law clerk, of Wellington, who had pleaded guilty to four charges of forgery and uttering. Appearing for prisoner, Mr. F, C. Spratt said tligt Keene, who was a married man, 32 years of age, came from a family of ease, and it might be that he had not the discipline that was required to keep him straight. He was informed, that there was a previous conviction against Keene, involving the taking of a postal packet. It was more a breach of postal regulations than an actual theft. Prisoner’s father, although possessed of considerable means, got into financial difficulties, and asked his son for a comparatively small sum of money. The son had been working in a solicitor’s office for £3 10s. a week. His Honour: Does he have other resources than his salary? Mr. Spratt: No, so I am informed. The father is dead, and his estate, I understand, is going to be wound up satisfactorily. _ The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey) said £lBl was involved, but he was informed by the police that there was a further sum of £4O, making £221. It was difficult to understand how the father, who was reported to be in good circumstances, could take sums of money from a married man earning only £3 10s. a week. Mr. Spratt: He understood he was getting more. Mr. Macassey: I am informed that he is indebted to his employer for £9OO. His Honour: Is there any explanation how the money was spent? Mr. Macassey stated that the said prisoner’s wife had recently bought a house, having paid a considerable deposit. Mr. Spratt: These thefts were committed recently. Previous indebtedness may have been the cause. His Honour, in passing sentence, said he did not know the circumstances of prisoner’s employment, and it would therefore be improper for him to comment on the fact that he was only receiving £3 10s. a week, though ing a position of trust. Speaking generally, those who e employed individuals in a position of trust ought certainly to see that their employees received a salary sufficient to provide for the ordinary necessities suitable for the position they occupied. There was, however, the other side. People who occupied a position of tfust must fulfil their duties no matter what salary they received. It was clear in the prisoner’s case that he bad committed several acts of forgery, repeated acts, and it was quite impossible to admit him to probation. “It should be known,” added His Honour, “particularly in view of the fact that you have a previous conviction, that where those circumstances exist the Court will not grant probation, though due regard would be given to the circumstances in each case. I think the Court can do no other than order you to be detained for reformative treatment for a period not exceeding two years.”