SIX MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 260, 30 July 1937, Page 8

SIX MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR

Sentence on Man Who Posed as a Doctor SERIOUS VIEW TAKEN BY JUDGE Albert Fergus Stanley Hickey who, on June 30 last, pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s. Court, Wellington, to the attempted uttering of a forged document, was yesterday, in the Supreme Court, sentenced by JU’. Justice Heed to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Prisoner was represented by Mr. D. Perry, and the police by the Crown prosecutor, Mr. W. 11. Cunningham. ‘The prisoner stands convicted on his own plea,” said Mr. Perry, “of forging and uttering a certificate that be had passed certain medical degrees, thus 1 having offended against the laws of the country.” Counsel said he hoped to show that the prisoner had done something for the community. He was 38 years of age, married, and had three young children. He was a member of a family whose singular devotion to one another was a matter of comment among those who knew the family. He came to New Zealand 10 years ago from Australia, and was one of the founders of a company of which he had been the general .manager since its foundation. He had proved himself a most capable and zealous officer who had discharged his duties with every satisfaction. His Honour: Why did he leave the company? ‘•He left as the result of these \ charges,” said Mr. Perry. “He had not resigned before then.” A complete investigation of the company’s affairs had since been made and proved that the whole affairs of the company were in perfect order. His Researches. The prisoner, continued Mr. Perry, had devoted the whole of his career to insurance with great enthusiasm, and his researches along certain lines had added to the sum of current knowledge of insurance. A paper which he had given at a students' society, was considered a masterly exposition of the subject and had been widely published in pamphlet form under the name of Dr. A. F. Hickey, M. 8., F.A.1.1., and in authoritative insurance journals. “It has since come to my knowledge that the prisoner was not responsible for the publication of that document with those initials tagged on the end of his name.” In reply to his Honour, Mr, Perry said it must have been generally under- . stood he held the degrees. “They did not just pick them out of the air,” said Mr. Perry. “He was known as Dr. Hickey., He is a man who had done something. He had deserved well of the community.” Since the case, said Mr. Perry, many people had approached him—numbers of responsible men—of their own ac- ' cord and asked what they could do to assist the prisoner. They described him as one of the most unselfish men • that they had known. "Utterly Foolish.” ■; Counsel- submitted that the offence with which Hickey was charged showed no criminal instincts. The crime was so utterly foolish. - There was no suggestion that it was done for the sake of pecuniary gain, or to get himself out of some difficulty. 1 liekey bad no pecuniary difficulties. Though he bad used the term "doctor” he had not offended against the law by practising medicine. Prior to this offence. Hickey had been working so hard that he was in danger of having a nervous breakdown. All who knew him agreed that be was "burning the candle at both ends”, and he would have to “let up.” Over and above his work, which was a whole-time job, he was giving lectures to students twice a week, each lecture being of one hour duration. These required considerable preparation. AU this without any reward beyond the satisfaction that he was helping others. On top of these lectures he was engaged in intense research on life insurance matters. Also, he was ■ constantly giving advice to other in- . surance officers.

Represented Himself as a Doctor.

His Honour: During tbe 10 years he has been in New Zealand has he represented himself as a doctor? “Yes, your Honour,” replied Mr. Perry. “It is rather extraordinary, that in Australia he was given the nickname of ‘Doe,’ and since coming over here he has assumed the title.”

Counsel suggested that the prisoner had been already sufficiently punished by the disgrace, the loss of his career in insurance, at least in this country, and the shame he had brought on his wife and family through his attempted suicide. “I know something of the agonies of mind he is going through,” he added. In support of his appeal fori leniency, Mr. Perry referred to the fact that prisoner had spent some weeks in custody following hig attempt on his own life; that he had pleaded guilty, thereby saving expense to the country; that no one, after all, had been injured by the offence; that the offence was not one which, by reason of its prevalence, would compel the court to inflict exemplary punishment. The Crown prosecutor said it was true that Hickey had not practised as a medical man in the sense of attempting to treat people. “Rather Serious Offence.” “I look upon this as a rather serious offence in your case,” said his Honour, addressing the prisoner. “It is a matter the court must deal with by punishment. It is not a case for probation.” Continuing, he said the prisoner, openly, for some reason, possibly for the purpose of assisting him in the company, assumed the title of doctor. There was no practical harm in this except that it continued for a matter of 10 years. “When the Health Department made inquiries from you, that was the time for you to tel] tbe truth,” said his Honour. “Instead of that, you embarked on a campaign of lying. You told a tissue of lies—that you had obtained your degrees in England at the Royal College of Surgeons. y ou then changed your story to represent you had the degrees granted by tbe Melbourne University. You still could have got out of it, but you went out of your way to forge a statement said to be from the registrar of the Melbourne University. “If you were an illiterate or un-educated-man one could give you some consideration, but that is not the position. You could not have attained the position you did without being s man of sufficient knowledge.

“But that Is not all. One might have looked on it as due to suffering from nerves, but when inquiries were made in Melbourne it wae discovered that

from the insurance company by which you were employed you embezzled £6OOO in six years. You were not prosecuted, but it was made a condition that you were to refund the amount. I don’t know how much you hirve refunded.” Mr. Perry: I understand restitution has -been made in full. His Honour: There is uo evidence of that. Anyhow, I can’t credit that. What has been done is this: They have agreed to a complete discharge of indebtedness.” Mr. Perry: This was after restitution of £3500 in hard cash had been made by him, and assets valued at £1305 transferred in satisfaction of the rest. “That does not get ov<y the fact,” continued his Honour, "that in six years he embezzled £6OOO. The only way to look al it is that be is irresponsible for his actions, and does things without regard for the penalty. “1 don't propose Io impose a heavy penally—his career in life insurance has been ruined —but it must be clear that the forging of documents cannot be looked on lightly. He will be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.”