PICKPOCKET’S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 226, 20 June 1936, Page 14

PICKPOCKET’S APPEAL

Counsel Suggests Offence

Is Lost Art

SOME COMPARISONS Comparisons with sentences imposed for other types of criminal offences were made before the Court of Appeal, vVelliugtou, yesterday, by Mr. 11. Hardie Boys, counsel for John Sandford Valvoi, travelling salesman, who appealed against a sentence of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour passed on him by Mr. Justice Smith after a jury fouud him guilty of robbing a man of a watch and lob valued at 30/-. Mr. Boys said the' offence was, in common parlance, one of pickpocketing. At the same sessions at which Valvoi was sentenced an intoxicated motorist who caused the death of two persons re ceived 18 mouths’ imprisonment, while he recalled another instance where a man convicted on 13 charges of breaklug an I entering, stated by the police to lie the best of 117 offences, was sentenced to three ycars’s reformative detention. The acting-Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Reed) said counsel could not draw comparisons in sentences like those quoted, Mr. Boys submitted pickpocketing was not in the same category as breaking and entering; there was not so much of it. Valvoi’s appeal was not based ou law ; be relied on the mercy of the court, said Mr. Boys. There were no circumstances of unusual depravity in regard to the crime and no violence. The man robbed and Valvoi were somewhat under the influence ot liquors. The Crown evidence was that Valvoi engaged the man in conversation, asked him to have a meal, and when he refused, Valvoi walked away. The man then missed the watch and fob. Mr. Justice Fair asked if Valvoi had not placed one hand on the mans throat and the other at his waist, and when pushed away, repeated these actions Mr Boys said there was no violent laving on of hands. It was more in the nature or a half-drunken embrace than an assault. „ , , . Mr Justice Nortbcroft asked if it were not suggested by the police that the man robbed was excited, not intoxicated. He was a foreigner of excitable temperajnem. Valvoi accosted him as a complete stranger, with two companions. The late Crown Prosecutor, Mr. 1.8.1.. Macassey, had specifically stated there was nothing to show the other two men were associated in the robbery, said Mr. Boys. Vaivoi's history was one oi small tneits There was nothing in his record to indicate such a severe sentence was necessary. One conviction for theft was where Valvoi failed to place money entrusted to him on a racehorse stipulated, but backed his own fancy. When the stipulated horse won he could not account for the money and was charged. In 1930 he was fined £5 for theft of a coat, and in 1934 sentenced to six months imprisonment for stealing an unemployment levy book from aui<her man. . . Tbe acting-Chief Justice: In the interval he was charged with being idle and disorderly, fighting ami assault. Have you seen the police report? Mr Boys replied he know the police alleged Valvoi was a skilled pickpocket, but his record did not suggest this. It was not a prevalent offence, as in the days of public fairs, and eb on -a lost art. Mr. Justice Johnston: They carry on um.il found out. The acting-Chief Justice said people did not carry watches and wear silk handkerchiefs as they used to. The court reserved its decision.