£500 ARSON FINE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 174, 20 April 1937, Page 2

£500 ARSON FINE

Supreme Court Sentence to Stand VERDICT OF APPEAL COURT An application by Paul Nodwell for leave to appeal against the sentence passed upon him at Wanganui, when he was found guilty of arson and fined £5OO by Mr. Justice Smith, who said be proposed to make prisoner feel the consequences of his crime through his purse, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal at Wellington yesterday. The sentence stipulated that if the fine was not paid within two days Nodwell was to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years. , The appeal was heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Fair. Mr. V. B. Willis, Wanganui, appeared for applicant, and Mr. N. A. Foden for the Crown. The judgment of the court was delivered by the Chief Justice, who said that applicant was convicted at Wanganui on a charge of arson which consisted in his setting fire to a house situate on land held by him from the Wanganui Hospital Board under a leaso renewable from time to time by 21-year periods. He occupied one room of the house, the other portions of the building being occupied by his tenants, a family named Morgan, who, however, were away from home at the time of the fire. The offence was committed at about 2.30 o’clock in the morning, when a wind of gale force was blowing. The house was insured in the name of the lessor for £6OO, and the tenant’s furniture and effects were also insured in another office for £3OO. The object of applicant in setting fire to the building was apparently to secure a new and better building for himself at the expense of the insurers. Had the offence remained undetected, the insurers of both the house and the tenants’ furniture would .have been defrauded. But the far more serious aspect of the offence was that there was another house close by which, and the lives and property of the persons residing therein, might well have been endangered. Fortunately the fire brigade was early on the scene, and the damage done was substantially confined to applicant’s house and the tenants’ furniture. The offence, however, could not be regarded as other than a very serious out* Bachelor With Means. The jury, In returning their verdict of guilty, recommended the applicant to mercy. The ground of the recommendation wits apparently that applicant was a chronic invalid .suffering from silicosis, or miner’s phthisis. The offence was one the punishment for which would ordinarily be a substantial term of imprisonment, but the trial judge, having regard to the jury’s recommendation and applicant’s state of health, and there being evidence that, applicant wa.s a bachelor with means to the extent of about £3300, and in receipt. of certain pensions as well, imposed a fine of £5OO in lieu of a term of imprisonment, such fine to be paid within two days, the term of imprisonment in default being fixed at two years’ reformative detention. The fine was paid into and has been duly paid by the registrar into the Consolidated Fund. No application was made to the trial judge to extend the time for payment pending an appeal against sentence. Probably such an application had not then been decided on. A preliminary point, continued the judgment, was taken, ou behalf of the Crown that, the fine having been paid, the Court of Appeal had no longer any jurisdiction to reduce the sentence, and that the only remedy open to the applicant was to apply to the GovernorGeneral under section 3 of the Penalties Remission Act, 190 S. “We do not consider it necessary to express a concluded opinion on the preliminary point, as the application has been fully argued on the merits and we have come to the conclusion that, even if there is jurisdiction, applicant has not made out a case on the merits which would entitle him to a reduction of the sentence,” stated the judgment. “It is true that applicant has had to refund the sum of £355 being the expense incurred In restoring the house, and also to pay the sum of £252 to the insurers of’ the furniture which they paid to the tenants after the fire, and that these facts were not known to the learned trial judge when he sentenced the applicant. “Chuinot Complain.” “But, so far as the expense of restoring the house is concerned, applicant himself gets the benefit of that expenditure, and he cannot complain if as the result of his crime he has to pay the amount himself instead of having it found for his benefit by an innocent third party. Nor do we think that he is entitled to a reduction of the sentence simply because he has had to pay for the furniture and effects belonging to other persons which he destroyed by his own wilful act. Taking everything into consideration, including the payments which applicant has had to make, we are unable to say that the sentence or fine was excessive, having regard to the nature and quality and the circumstances generally of the offence.”