DESERTION CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 295, 10 September 1941, Page 10

DESERTION CHARGES

Three Soldiers Before Court-Martial ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE POINT RAISED Three soldiers of the 2nd N.Z.E.F,, including one who served in the Great War and had done six months' eservice in Fiji during the present war, wei% charged with desertion before a district courtmartial at Treutham yesterday. In ea-b case a report of the proceedings will be forwarded to the convening officer, Brigadier N. W. McD. Meir, N.Z.S.U., aud sentence will be announced when promulgated. The coiistituliou of the Court was: Major 8. ll.' Gould, president; Major J. C. Holmes, Captain E. Kiug.’M.M., members, and Major A. B. oievwright, L.D., judge-advocate. Lieutenant B. N. Vickerman was prosecuting otlieer, and Sec-ond-Lieutenant G. Sainsbury defending officer. , , Private Carlyle Pardoe was charged with desertion in that be was absent without, leave from July 23'to August 28, when he surrendered himself at Irentham camp. He pleaded not guiltj. The prosecuting officer said the. question for the court was whether 36 days absence without leave constituted deserll°Evidence was given that accused was due hack in camp on July 23 after seven day’s sick leave. He actually returned on* August 28, having been posted as a deserter on August 1. Accused, to the president, said he had nothing to say on his own behalf. The defending officer said that to establish desertion, as distiuct from absence without leave, it must be shown that there was intention to stay away or, iu effect, desert a duty of the Army altogether. It was difficult sometimes to distinguish between the two offences. He asked that this case be treated as absence without leave. Mere length of absence was not evidence of desertion. A soldier could be absent a year and not be guilty of desertion. On the other hand he could be away only six hours and be miilty of desertion. It was all a matter of intention, and in this case the accused returned voluntarily in uniform. 74 Days’ Absence. Private Gordon Smith Wilkinson was charged with desertion ou active service by being absent without leave from June 16 till apprehended by the civil police at Feilding on August 27. t The prosecuting officer said that accused's absence of 74 days followed a term of service in Fiji. Be was still on active service when he deserted, and must have realized that during his absence he avoided movement with other troops. It was not sufficient for accused to say, in effect, “I was arrested in uniform; therefore that shows I did not intend to desert?’ ' The defending officer said that intention aud motive for desertion must be proved. The fact of 74 days absence was not in itself proof of desertion and evidence of this absence was all there was before the Court. Accused served in the Great War and had served six mouths in Fiji in the present war. He came back and probably tried the old soldier’s” trick of wanting more leave ami just taking it. ■ *«,„ The judge-advocate, addressing tne court, said the criteria of desertion as against absence without teave, ere t V e items showing intention. The facts in this case were accused’s absence tor <4 days and his being arrested 114 miles frwn his camp. Time,, place and distance were factors in establishing desertion. Accused might well have remained in uniform to get the advantages of it. It could be seen from his ribbons he had served in the Great War and he could truthfully tell people he had served in this. Thus, as an old soldier, he could expect hospitable treatment. Accused’s conduct sheet showed that he was aged 40. He had been charged with absence without leave for 15 days before district court-martial in September. 1940, when the sentence was one of ‘reduction to the ranks (from sergeant). Private Ilonald Edward Jukes, aged 24, was charged with deserting on May 25, 1941, in that he absented himself, while in arrest, from the detention barracks, Treutham, till apprehended by the civil police at Dunedin on. August 21, wearing civilian clothes. This soldier was not represented by a defending officer. Evidence was given that accused was sentenced to 90 days’ detention by a district court-martial at Treutham in May last on a charge of desertion. In that case, he had been absent without leave from December 4, 1940. to May 1, 1941, when he was arrested at Blenheim wearing civilian clothes. Accused? who pleaded guilty, made a statement that he had been advised by a friend that she was in' difficult circumstances. He had been worried about her and anxious to assist. After serving six days of the 90 days’ detention he decided to escape and see what he could do to help her. He escaped, dressed himself in civilian clothes and went to Hamilton to pick up more of his personal belongings. Then he went to Dunedin, where his friend was, and got a job. His idea was to get money to help his friend and. when she was no louger embarrassed, to return to camp. He knew when he determined to escape that be would have to face another court-martial, but thought he would stand by ' his friend whose difficulties were not of his making. He was geuuiuel.v anxious to serve his country and to go overseas at the first opportunity, lie was a volunteer.