MALICIOUS FIRE ALARMS

Evening Star, Issue 18048, 16 August 1922, Page 1

MALICIOUS FIRE ALARMS

FIRE SUPERINTENDENT PROTESTS,

INADEQUATE PENALTY. “I protest that six months’ imprisonment is scarcely an adequate punishment for a person who gives a malicious false alarm, and that the present maximum of one month is absurd.” Thus Superintendent Napier at the meeting of the Fire Board l yesterday, the matter having arisen out of a reply from the Minister of Justice, which was to the effect that ho considered the present penalty—a fine not exceeding £SO, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month—adequate. The Minister added that the police would always represent to the court the seriousness of the offence, and press for a) severe penalty. Mr Napier further expressed the opinion that the Minister himself did not realise the seriousness of the offence. The only fatal accidents in which he (the superintendent) had been involved, had occurred on occasions when the brigade had been called out by malicious false alarms. Mr W. Bcgg thought a month might be sufficient if there was any certainty of catching the offenders. Mr T. Chalmer: One or two have been caught, but the magistrate has considered a fine of £5 or less a sufficient penalty. Mr J. 7. Clark asked whether, in the event of a fatal accident occurring under such circumstances, the giver of the false alarm w-ould be liable to a charge of manslaughter. It was eventually decided to again write to the Minister stating that the board was still of the opinion that the maximum penalty' for the offence rnentionef was far tor light; and expressing Iho hope that vben any amendment to the Act was under consideration this clause would be altered.