MRS. EDOLS AGAIN

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 34, 9 August 1934, Page 17

MRS. EDOLS AGAIN

FAILUKE OF HER APPEAL

LONGER IMPRISONMENT

Aimcc. Belle Edols will serve ait ad* ditional five months' imprisonment as the result of her appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal (the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Jordan, Mr. Justice K. W: Street, and Mr. Acting Justice Markell), says the , "Sydney Morning Herald."

On the ground that sho had been continuously in custody from February 22, 1932, sho claimed that sentences amounting to two years' imprisonment which were passed on her by Mr. Justice Halse Eogers at the Contral Criminal Court an May 29 for offences under the Bankruptcy Act were too severe. . ' ■

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal' and directed that Mrs. Edols should commence to serve the two years' imprisonment from May 29 (the dato on which the sentence wax passed), and not from January 1- (the dato on which the sentences were to begin under the order of Mr. Justice Halse Rogers). The charges on which she was sentenced wore: Obtaining £3000 by fraud from one, McCounoll; obtaining amounts of £1500, £1500, and £900 from one Edwards; and contributing to her bankruptcy by gamb-

In a cultured voice which occasionally betrayed her emotion, Mrs. Edols made an eloquent and moving address to the Court in support of her appeal, and she then sat down' in the dock and wept bitterly. "My husband is old and is not able to work," she concluded. "Ho is penniless. If you only consider my caso'l am capable of earning sufficient to support us both. Many friends have expressed their wishes to help me earn my living. I am frightfully sorry for all the trouble and sorrow I have caused, and I will do everything in my power to make reparation, fOl the rest of my life. Ido not think that I can say anything further. I ask you to deal mercifully with my appeal." So that her case would be thoroughly understood (as she said), Mrs. Edols gave an account of her experiences since her estate was sequestrated in June, 1931. She told of her failure to obey an order made by Mr. Justice Luldu to make a statement of her affairs within two days, of having gone away from home, and of her arrest and imprisonment in Long Bay Penitentiary on February 22, 1932. She told, also, of her attendances at the Courts of Mr. Justice Lukin and the -Registrar in Bankruptcy, and of haying been sentence_d to' two terms of imprisonment, each of six months, by Mr. Justice Lukin, for eontompt, and of efforts which she made to comply with the re: quirements of the Court. These,* she claimed, had resulted in a purging of the contempt. ■ • . < PROSECUTION. On October 30 last she was again, taken before Mr. Justice Lukin, and Ho directed that she be prosecuted. November, December, and January passed without anything'being done, and on March 19 she was taken before a Magistrate and committed for trial. The date on which sho was sentenced by Mr. Justice Halse Rogers was ex-

actly a year and fivo months from- the time tho second sentence for contempt had expired, and seven months from the date-on which the Judge had directed the prosecution. During those seventeen months at Long Bay, said Mrs. Edols, she .and her husband suffered mental torture, not knowing from ono week to the other what was going to happen. As an unscutcnccd prisoner her position was a dreadful one. She practically suffered solitary confinement. She was locked up for seventeen, hours out of every twenty-four and very often, in the twenty-four hours she had' spoken only a few words at a time to the officer when lie %vas locking the door. Sho asked the Court to take into consideration the fact that on tho day she received the sentences sho had served the equivalent of three years and six months. Any female was allowed a remission of one-third of a-long sontenfie. Mr. L. O. Badham, who appeared for the Crown, said tho "trial Judge said that as the proceedings-had not been; taken as rapidly as they might have been ho would ante-dato tho sentences to January 1. The other matters of which she spoke had nothing to do with her awaiting trial.. There was a long series of refusals by her to account for £45,000 which she said she had. Over and over again she was asked where these assets were, and she persistently refused the information. Whether they existed or not nobody knew. to this day. The Court was familiar with the circumstances of. the frauds.

Tho Chief Justice: Do you know whether she has been treated as being present in custody pending a trial?

Mr. Badham: 1 am informed she applied to work while the appeal was pending, and she has been working in the library.

Tho Chief Justice, in giving the judgment of the Court, said that the imprisonment for contempt was not a matter that this Court could take into consideration. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the sentences were amply justified. In all the circumstances the Court was not disposed to say that tho sentences should commence from yesterday, but the Court had come to the conclusion that it-was not to be prepared to allow them to date from January 1. The Court proposed to adopt the intermediate course, and direct that they should run from the date on which sentence was passed, namely May 29.