THE REVINGTON ASSAULT CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 10341, 15 June 1897, Page 2

THE REVINGTON ASSAULT CASE.

SENTENCED TO ONE MONTH’S IMPRISONMENT. At the Police Court this morning (before Messrs W. Hutchison and J. Hyman, justices) John Douglas Norris, on remand, was charged with, on the 220 d of May, violently assaulting William Daly Revington, a person acting in aid of Constable Hickey, an officer, in the execution of his duty. Mr A. C. Hanlon, who appeared for accused, said that he had a preliminary appli* cation to make. The Bench would aee that the information was laid under section 189 of the Criminal Code, and provided that “ everyone is liable to two years’ imprisonnienb with hard labor who (I) assaults any person with intent to commit a crime ot to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of himself or of any other person; or (2) assaults, resists, or obstructs any peace officer in the execution of his duty, or any person acting _ in aid of such officer; or (3) assaults, resists, or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of any process against any lands or gobds, or in the making of any lawful distress, or with intent to rescue any goods taken under such process or distress.” This was an indictable offence. He (Mr Hanlon) was instructed by Mr Revington to make the following few remarks. It would be shown that Mr Revington was aiding a constable who was arresting accused, and in the scuffle which ensued Mr Revington had one of the bones in bis ankle broken. Mr Revington Was the person who was really aggrieved, and he asked that the case should be dealt with summarily. He had business which would probably take him away from Dunedin at about the time when the next criminal sessions would come on, and it would be exceedingly inconvenient for him to return to Dunedin to attend the Supreme Court if a prima facie case were made out. As Mr Revington did not want to run that risk if he could avoid it, he had instructed him to say that he would prefer that the matter should be dealt with as a summary case—that this information should be withdrawn, and an information for common assault laid against accused. Their Worships would then have power to inflict such a penalty as Mr Revington himself thought would meet the case—they could either fine accused or imprison him without the option of a fine. The position, so far as the police were concerned, was that they did not want to take the responsibility of saying that they would withdraw this particular charge and have another One issued. Counsel asked the Bench to suggest to the police that this information should be withdrawn and a charge for common assault laid instead. If that were done, no doubt the ends of justice would be met if the man were convicted on the other charge. He (Mr Hanlon) submitted that in a case of this sort, where the person aggrieved did not wish to go further than a charge of common assault, that should satisfy the police. Mr Revington himself could lay an information if he chose, but the police happened to be on the scene at the time, and they took the matter in hand. Sergeant O’Neill: Of course an offence has been committed. Mr Revington was assisting the police when accused committed a breach of the Criminal Code, which means an indictable offence. The information was laid as an indictable one, and, of course, if Mr Revington is inconvenienced by coming here the State will pay his expenses back to Dunedin. Mr Hanlon ; It is not a question of expense, but inconvenience. Sergeant O’Neill; He can suffer nothing in that way. The police will be satisfied with whatever decision the Bench come to. Mr Hanlon pointed out that the law recognised the right of the injured person to recover damages from the man for breaking his leg. Mr Hutchison: The point is this: the police require protection. Mr Hanlon : I don’t overlook that. The police got protection. Mr Revington says: “ I went as a citizen to assist the constable, who was arresting the man. The man was struggling, and 1 assisted the officer to the beat of my power. Whether I assisted the constable or not, I want the man punished for breaking my leg.” Mr Hutchison: The public know the punishment is very severe for assaulting a citizen while assisting the police. Mr Hanlon said if the public were going to have no say in the punishment at all, but were to be led to and fro by the police, they would allow the police to fight their own battles in future. That was a very bad principle to adopt. Mr Revington assisted the police, and now he found it would be inconvenient for him to return to Dunedin. Therefore, counsel asked was it fair that he should be brought back, and put to inconvenience which was never contemplated by him. Mr Hutchison < I understand the police have no objetion. Sergeant O’Neill: That is not exactly the position. We are entirely in your Worships’ hands. The information was ultimately withdrawn, and accused was then charged with common assault, to which he pleaded not guilty. Sergeant O’Neill said the facts of the case were as follow : On Saturday night, the 22nd of last month, Constable Hickey was called by Mr Revington, licensee of the Grand Hotel, to eject from his house a man (not accused) who was creating a disturbance. The man was removed from the place. Accused, who was outside, commenced to create a disorderly scene, and the constable was compelled to take him into custodj on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. While the constable and his man were passing the corner of High and Princes streets some others saught hold of the policeman and tried to rescue accused from his custody. Mr Revington was close at hand, and came to the constable’s assistance. He caught hold of the accused, who kicked him, fracturing one of the small bones of his leg. The injured man had been confined to his house ever since. Dr Jeffcoat said that Mr Revington was suffering from a fracture of the small bone on the outside of the ankle and the laceration of the ligaments on the inside of the foot. The injury was evidently caused by a twist, for had it been a kick the ligaments would not likely have been injured. William Daly Revington said that accused twined his leg round his and threw him over. Constable Hickey also gave evidence. Mr Hanlon submitted that the evidence disclosed no offence. In this case there was no common assault, because to commit a common assault there must be, counsel contended, some wilful, improper interference with an individual. That was not what occurred here. It had been shown that Mr Revington went to the assistance of the police officer, and while he was assisting —that was, while he was interfering with the accused person, who was endeavoring to get away—accused threw out his leg, only to trip the constable if he could, but tripped Mr Revington instead and broke his leg. He could not be punished for breaking ’the leg, because that was not within the man’s intention whatever, and before the Bench could convict him of common assault they had to be satisfied that the injury was done intentionally. Could it be said for a moment that accused wanted to break the man’s leg? All he wanted to do was to effect his escape. Accused could/ not be criminally responsible. Counsel, in support of his argument, cited an English case where a man was charged with riding a bicycle so carelessly and negligently as to make himself liable to be punished for a breach of the law. The man knocked down a person in the street and injured him, and he (counsel) asked where was the distinction between the two cases ? The result of the case in England was that the man was not held liable criminally, but civilly, and so he (Mr Hanlon) said it was in this case. Sergeant O’Neill, in reply, said that i' appeared from the evidence that aoqused wilfully twjned his leg round that of Mr Raving ton’s, regardless of the consequences. He (the sergeant) presumed that Inn man riding the bicycle did not intend to knock anyone down, it being simply an accident through carelessness.

Ilf S#MI WIKI HttMtf iK—yM* U>bn*Wkgl Mr Hutah&at ffc m H m mingy betwese th« two mm, Mr Hanlonj I m preparMl \» wgM tMfe On what ground 4o yw My (my n»*M analogous! I h*v» ft right tobym4ft**vince the Bench if I ceo. Mr Hutchison : You nr* driftg —(Laughter.) The bicyclist bed m »•«*•- tion of injuring anyone wimfum this man deliberately committed this Mr Hanlon: The doctor's evidfftOS that he could not have done it wilfully. . W your Worships ignore the died mm, which is on all fours, I will appeal Mr Hutchison: It is not on all fours. Mi Hanlon : If yon choose not to recog nise the law as it is put before you. you must take the responsibility of tbftt. I have my remedy. Mr Hutchison: Oh, yes. . After consultation with hie colleague, Mr Hutchison (addressing accused) said : You have been ably defended by counsel, bat the evidence before ns seems to prove that you meant to assault Mr Revington. Yon did not mean to break his leg, at least that it the impression, but you assaulted him* and his leg was broken. You have been very leniently dealt with, seeing that the Bench have agreed to modify the charge to common assault. Had this not been done the sentence you would have received would probably have been very different to the one you are about to receive. The decision of the Bench is that you be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. A young woman, wife of accused, burst out into piercing shrieks as soon as the sentence was declared, and had to be removed from the court.