DUAL VOTER’S SENTENCE

Grey River Argus, 14 March 1939, Page 7

DUAL VOTER’S SENTENCE

REDUCED BY APPEAL COURT Offender Not Sober r I [Per Press Association] J WELLINGTON, March 13. The Court of Appeal to-day reduced to one month’s imprisonment a sen- . fence of six months’ imprisonment ■ imposed by Mr. Justice Reed at New I Plymouth, in February, 1939, on > “Percy Allen, for an offence of dual voting. Mr. J. D. Willis, appearing in support of the prisoner's application for a reduction of the sentence, submitted that the original sentence was excessive, and that the prisoner, now having served three weeks, should be released. Mr. Willis referred to the affidavit of Allen’s medical attendant, filed since the sentence was imposed, and .said that the affidavit, together with evidence given when the . prisoner was charged, showed that he had been affected by drink when the offence was committed. It was clear that the offence was not a deliberate attempt to deceive tile returning officer, because the prisoner was a well known figure to everyone, including a police constable at the booth. Moreover. there was no attempt at personation, and the second voting ocI curred within a quarter of an hour of the first. I Counsel also referred to a case which came before the Supreme Court ( at Napier on the same day, where, for a similar offence, a prisoner had been admitted to probation. The Solicitor-General. appearing for the Crown, said that it was just a case of a rather disreputable individual being detected in rather a serious offence. If the Court took the view that the prisoner did not know what he was doing, it was competent for the Court to treat it more benevolently, but the sentence should not be reduced to the extent suggested by Mr. Willis. Chief Justice Myers said that, speaking for himself, he regarded the offence as a serious one. One could quite see that, in a closely contested election, a few cases of dual voting could be a very serious thing for the candidates and for the country. Apart from that, Parliamentary elections must be kept clean. However. it appeared that the case was one where the offender was under the influence of liquor. He was impressed by the affidavit of the medical practitioner, which was not before Mr. Justice Reed when the prisoner was sentenced. His Honour felt that if the affidavit had been before Mr. Justice Reed, the sentence under consideration would not have been imposed. He thought that justice would be served if the sentence were reduced to one month.

Mr. Justice Ostler and Mr. Justice Smith agreed to a reduction, pointing out that they did so because they took the view that the offence was not a deliberate attempt to interfere with the election.