SMITH’S REAL OFFENCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 19 May 1928, Page 2

SMITH’S REAL OFFENCE.

* INTOXICATION WHILE DRIVING. JUDGE’S REMARKS TO PRISONER, Before sentence on George Cravy Smith was passed by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court at Neiy Plymouth yesterday (as reported in yesterday’s “Star”), on the conviction of driving in a negligent manner and °f being in a state of intoxication while in charge of a motor ear and thereby causing the death of Millicent Elizabeth Richter, of Mokoia, Mr. P. O ’Dea, ivho appeared for the prisoner, said that no doubt drink was the cause of the man’s undoing. He was a married man, of 54 years of age, with a wife and two children. He had lived most of his life in the district, following the occupation of a stockdealer. He had been employed by some, of the most prominent firms, and they all spoke in the highest terms of his probity and honour. Mr. O ’Dea road letters which the prisoner had received from the late Mr. Newton King, iii 1924, from Mr. H. G. Dickie, M.P., Mr. J. W. McMillan, Mayor of Stratford, Mr. Fred Bayley, and Mr. Hewitt, manager of one of the opposition firms to that by which Smith was employed. Counsel said from his own knowledge of the prisoner he could sny tliat this occurrence had made a big mark on him, and no one more keenly regretted the circumstances than he did. Apart from the fact that he had taken to drink lie had always been an estimable citizen. Mr. O’Dea said he had several well-known men present who would speak as to Smith’s character.

His Honour said he had assumed that the prisoner was a man of good character.

Mr. O’Dea then said he could only ask that in view of his previous good record his Honour would extend to the prisoner such leniency as the court could, and he. was sure any leniency shown would not be misplaced.

His Honour said it was not a case of leniency towards the prisoner. This class of offence was becoming so common that strong measures have to he taken to put a stop to it. Addressing, the prisoner, his Honour said: The jury have acquitted you upon the major charge of manslaughter and have found you guilty of the two counts charging breaches of section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19-24. That section provides for a maximum penalty of five years or a fine of £SOO. • I may take it "that your acquittal on the major charge, the maximum penalty for -which is life, indicates that the jury do not consider that a very severe penalty should be inflicted. This is no question about it, however, that thj punishment must be sustantial. The jury have found that you were in a state of intoxication and that owing to your driving the car whilst in that condition the death of this woman occurred. I agree that upon the evidence the jury could have rightfully found m- other verdict.

THE REAL OFFENCE. The question as to the proper sentence in such a ease is difficult. Being intoxicated whilst in charge of a motor-car is the real offence you committed In principle the amount of the penalty should he regulated by two considerations; (1) punishment of the offender; (2). as a deterrent to others from committing the same class of offence If I regard your real offence as being intoxicated whilst in charge of your car, then had you been prosecuted for that offence having been fortunate enough to escape injuring anyone you would have escaped with a fine or a short term of imprisonment, which is considered by the legislature adequate as a punishment and a deterrent for that offence. This makes the fixing of a penalty, by applying the ordinary principles, a difficult matter. Turning, however, to the Statute, it is clear that these broad principles are departed from and the result, fallowing on the commission of the real offence, has to be taken into consideration. The result in your ease has been the death of this unforunate woman, and the law says I am to regard that in fixing the penalty. In doing so I take into consideration the fact first, that attributing to you the feelings of an ordinary decent member of society the knowledge that you have killed a human being must in itself be a terrible punishment, secondly, that as I propose to prohibit you from driving a motor T car for many years, you will ‘probably be prevented from following your usual avocation and must seek some other source of livelihood. Taking these circumstances into consideration the sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term of twelve calendar months. I order that your motor-driver’s license be suspended until its expiration, and that you be disqualified from obtaining a further motor-driver’s licence far a period of five years from 'such expiration. I further order that you pay the costs of the prosecution, £4O, or serve a further two months’ imprisonment in default. t