THEFTS FROM SHOP

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 32, 7 February 1930, Page 10

THEFTS FROM SHOP

"SEKIOIXS OFFENCES"

EX-CONSTABLES SENTENCED

Two years' imprisonment with hard labour was -he sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Heed in the Supreme Court today on each of the two ex-constables concerned in the theft of goods from the shop of C. Smith, Ltd., Cuba street. The other man implicated in the affair was sentenced to eighteen months' reformative detention.

Joseph Maurice White, an artist, had pleaded guilty to breaking and cuteriug and theft, breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime, aud being in possession without lawful excuse of housebreaking implements.

Mr. J. J. M'Grath said that up to June of last year White was a hard-working man aud a decent citizen, but he had slipped badly, and he felt his disgrace very keenly. It was not avarice which prompted the commissio of the offences, counsel contended, for he received no benefit from any of the stolen articles. His extraordinary conduct was, Mr. M'Grath suggested, due to the fact that he was impelled by a sense of adventure, coupled with a false idea of security in the knowledge that his associates were policemen. Counsel pointed out that White had, in his first statement, remained loyal to the other two. Certainly he had given evidence against Stevenson, but not in any hope that his punishment would be made lighter. Hi= Honour: "I made it quite clear that it would make no difference at all." NO POSSIBILITY OF PROBATION. Counsel went on to refer to the possibility of probation being granted, iv view of the prisoner's unblemished record in the past. His Honour: "There is too much of this type of crime in which probation is granted." On behalf of Hugh Robertson Stevenson, who was found guilty of receiving goods, valued at £17 ss, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained, Mr. W. Perry said that during the prisoner's period in the Police Force be had earned the confidence of his superior officers, and he had never committed any breach of the police regulations. It was sometimes said that the receiver was worse than the thief, in certain circumstances, but, said counself, as he understood the position, those circumstances existed where the receiver provided the thief with facilities for disposing of the stolen goods. The total valuo of the goods stolen in the present case was £166 18s Bd, and yet the prisoner received goods to the value of only £17 ss. Counsel said that iv the event of the prisoner being convicted and ordered to come up for sentence within a certain period—and he pleaded that such a course should be adopted—Stevenson would be able to leave the country without delay.

Wilfred Leonard Kamm, who had pleaded guilty to breaking and entering and theft, was represented by Mr. W. E. Let* ccster. Counsel 6aid that the case was a painful one. Eamm had been a popular and well-respected member o£ the Police Force. He had committed a breach of trust, but, said counsel, it would be unwise for the Court to attach too much significance to that fact, because every man who committed an offence was guilty of a breach of the trust placed in him by someone. ■ Counsel urged that Kamm was prompted rather by, a spirit of escapade and adventure than by any deeplyrooted criminal instinct. Had the prisoner not been a constable, said counsel, he would have been emboldened to ask for probation. However, the fact remained that he was a young married man and had pleaded'guilty, thereby showing that in a measure, however small, he sought to palliate the offence. His Honour said that he had very carefully considered the case. It was one of the most serious of its type that he had had to.deal with, because of the fact that two members of the Police Force were parties to it. Tho crime of breaking and entering ami theft was one that was, unfortunately,' on the increase, and Judges wero determined, as far as possible, to deter persons from committing it by means of adequate punishment. But, in addition, the offence involved two members of the Police Force whose duty was to protect the public, and they themselves indulged in the crime. His Honour saiil he looked upon it as a very serious offenca indeed. As far as White was concerned, there was probably something to be said for his having been more or less dragged into the affair by the fact that the two constables were engaged in it. Ono could quite imagine a man of not too strong a mentality being induced to participate in such a crime because of the others associated in it. Consequently he intended to make some difference in the sentences he would impose.

White was sentenced to eighteen months' reformative detention. Each of the other two was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, his Honour remarking that he could see no difference between the cases.