THREE YEARS’ HARD LABOUR

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 June 1933, Page 7

THREE YEARS’ HARD LABOUR

0 SENTENCE ON WRIGHT JUDGE’S CAUSTIC COMMENTS ’ Comment of a caustic nature was I passed by Mr Justice -Blair at the . Supremo Court, Gieymouth, to-day, ’lbefore lie sentenced Janies McLay | Wright to three years’ imprisonment, I with hard labour. Wright was found ; I guilty by a jury, on Thursday, on a , charge that, at Caplestoh, on May 21, by night, with intent to annoy Joseph I Nohra, .he .attempted to alarm Nohra, by exploding gelignite adjacent to his 11 dwellinghouse. Mr T. F. Brosnan, in applying for leniency, said that Wright was a young man, of 29 years. He had two previous convictions. His Honor: They had nothing to do with this sort of thing. They were for obscene language, and fighting. I You need not bother about them. He is evidently a bit of a bully. Mr Brosnan said that, there was nothing criminally known of Wright, I until the unfortunate case now before His Honor.' The facts showed that nothing was premeditated. On the contrary, it was a climax to an unfortunate set of circumstances that existI ed. It was unfortunate that, in a mining district, gelignite could easily I be procured. His Honor: You are not complaining about that, surely! What is unforItunate about that? I Mr Brosnan: It was to his hand, and when the occasion arose — His Honor (interrupting): f suppose there are axes to your hand. People do not run around with axes, killing other people. No one is compelled to use -weapons. .1 don’t see that has anything to do with it. 1 i Mr Brosnan said it was also un- 1 fortunate that his ♦■client apparently (despised Nohra, but his feelings were ’ not stronger than that. The third unfortunate circumstance was that, in a, small community such as Capleston, there were no means of recreation when the men were not working. Had there been some physical sport in which accused could have engaged, counsel submitted that Wright would 1 not have appeared in Court on this 1 charge. Nohra had said that, on the night of the explosion, he heard a 1 noise, and assumed that it was the “mob” returning. It appeared to be the usual thing, for the men to spend their week-ends in Reefton. The jury’s finding was that the facts showed that all the accused did was to at-

tempt to annoy. His Honor: He did more than that. The charge is that, by night, with intent to annoy, did attempt to alarm. Nohra, by an explosion near his dwellinghouse, Mr Brosnan pointed out that the jury took a considerable time to arrive at their finding. The purpose of punishment was not only deterrent, but reformative. There was no reason why accused could not be a valuable member of society. The ends of Justice had been met, in that the offender had been convicted, and that the witnesses had not been afraid to come forward. His Honor said that he had been interested in the latter phase of the matter, and had made enquiries from the police. If anyone had been ill in the locality, the chances were that the effects of the explosion might have been serious. It struck him .as peculiar that every one of the people poked their heads under the bedclothes and stayed there. It looked as though they were terrified. The police said that there was considerable difficulty in getting anyone to talk, because they WERE AFRAID TO TALK. ' In case of fire, for instance, it was usually found that everyone ran out of their houses, to see what was happening. Mi’ Brosnan stated that Nohra himself, did not show any undue alarm, and neither did the women in the house. The jury had found that the explosion was caused with intent to annoy. Counsel appealed strongly to His Honor, to consider whether a lenient sentence on Wright, imposing a trust in him, might not mean the saving of a . good citizen. His Honor: You say she is a good citizen. How do you get that? Do you say a man is a good citizen who accepts aid from another, whom he uses objectionable language about? That man helps him, and he turns around and shows the basest ingratitude. If that is the standard of citizenship on the West Coast, I should say that it is a shocking libel on the citizens of the West Coast. My experience of West Coasters is that they are people who have the greatest. respect for their obligations. Because Nohra asked for an account which ought to be paid, could be paid, and would not be paid, this man turned around and used violence. You say he is a good citizen, but I think he is a disgrace to the citizenship of the West Coast, both he and the other man (Schroder). Mr Brosnan stated that the only other offences accused had committed were not, in themselves, criminal. Wright in this case committed an unpremeditated offence, which might have happened while he was under the influence of liquor, and leniency should not be withheld. Leniency might have the effect of giving Wright an incentive to undo the wrong he had done, and to regain his place in society. His Honor ;• How is he going to undo it? I don’t understand. What do you mean by that? Mr Brosnan: There is no reason why this man cannot attempt to start life anew.

Ills Honor: I always had the idea that, to undo a wrong, was to put right that wrong. How is he going to undo this? Mr Brosnan: He can expiate the punishment for this . crime. His Honor: But you say I should not punish him. You suggest that I should put him on his honour. I cannot see honour oozing out of him, so far.

Mr Brosnan: No sir. I suggest that if the punishment is reformative, rather than deterrent, it may give this man an incentive to restore himself to the position he has lost in society. His Honor: I wish someone else had this part of my job. There is no pari of my job I dislike more than dealing with criminal cases. Nobody knows the worry it causes me. Accused is not a man of honour, but JUST A BLACKGUARD. The case showed that Schroder and Wright were staked by Nohra, to en-

able them to earn their living, and they showed their gratitude not only by not returning the money which they could return and were m a position to return; they showed base ingratitude by refusing to pay, and, when Nohra took the very natural course of compelling them to pay, by Court, proceedings, these blackguards turned around and made Nohra’s life a burden, terrified him, and used fearful language tc him. They were living in a little township, and the other people there did not know when they would get similar treatment. These men seemed to imagine they were a law unto thmselves. It must be made plain to them that this sort of thing is not going to be, tolerated: otherwise, life would be made unbearable for everybody. I made enquiries, and the police said it was not until one man had the courage to speak, that others were prepared to come forward and give evidence against the accused. The first charge agiiinst Wright was an offence on which the punishment might be anything up to life imprisonment. The jury found him not guilty on that charge, probably .with good reason, accused’s idea being to annoy Nohra. but not, to damage his house. The damage to the house was incidental. However, someone in the house might have been injured, or might have come out of the house and been blown to pieces. It was a shocking thing to do. Instead of having a grievance against Nohra, accused should have been grateful to him. That is the man counsel suggested should be put, on his honour, to show what a wonderfully good citizen he was. I cannot see any evidence of good citizenship about him; the very reverse is the case. It looks to me that I would be completely failing in my duty 1o everybody, if 1 treated this case as a lenient, matter. I do have to take into consideration the fact that this is his first offence, so far as criminal law is concerned, the others being only trivial matters. The sentence I shall impose is three years’ imprisonment, - with hard labour''.