PRISONERS SENTENCED

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 28 May 1932, Page 6

PRISONERS SENTENCED

FRENCHMAN’S 4-YEAR TERM G. ROBERTS SENT TO GAOL COUNSEL’S PLEA FOR MAORI Six prisoners appeared for sentence before' His Honour, Mr Justice Reed, in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday. One, a Frenchman, was described by His Honour as a dangerous character who should be deported at the expiration of the four-year term of imprisonment which was imposed for discharging a firearm at police officers.

FOUR YEARS IMPRISONMENT FRENCHMAN WHO ATTACKED POLICE.

JUDGE RECOMMENDS DEPORTATION.

Christian de Rink was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with (hard labour for discharging, a shotgun at police officers and assaulting them m an attempt to resist arrest at Tikorangi. , . , Prisoner’s counsel said that he haa only one subject on which he desired to make some observations, and that was de Rink’s temperament, said counsel. He was a Frenchman, and the French temperament was totally opposed to phlegmatic British temperament. He asked the l court to consider whether de Rink’s feelings of excitement during his interview with the police a,t Tikorangi 'so much got the better of him that he really did not appreciate what he was doing, or what he might do with a gun. in liis possession. In addition, counsel urged His Honour not to overlook the fact that whatever happened there was no suggestion that he had actual intent to wound the officers. His Honour; I am inclined to think that if the police had not exercised a considerable amount of discretion lie would have -wounded them. Counsel pointed o.ut that de Rink was 61 years of age and that he had been in custody since his arrest on March 14.

“Prisoner at the bar,” said His Honour, “the evidence shows you ate a dangerous character. But for the discretion shown by the two police officers you might very well have been here on a charge of murder. Your deliberate flouting of the law in this manner places you in the category of those we do' not' want in New Zealand, and I trust you will be deported at the end of the sentence I am about to give you.”

Counsel had suggested that de Rink did not realise the seriousness of wliat lie did, but His Honour pointed out that the Legislature of this Dominion regarded the offence committed by de Rink so seriously that it provided for' a penalty of imprisonment for life. His Honour did not propose to inflict that p unishment, however. On each of the first two counts of discharging a gun at Detective Meiklejohn and Constable Tocher with intent to resist arrest he would be sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with hard labour. On catch (of the other two counts of assaulting the officers to resist arrest lie would receive two years’ imprisonment. The sentences would be concurrent, making four years altogether.

TWELVE MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR

SENTENCE ON GEORGE ROBERTS

In asking that in punishing George Roberts- the court should temper justice with mercy, counsel submitted that the evidence had shown the girl gave Roberts encouragement as, on her own admission, she had walked into his house alone and was in his company for some hours ; that aspect should he given some consideration. Apart from liis moral character, Roberts was recognised at Hawera as being straightforward and honest in business, and a number of citizens could testify to his past good character in that respect. His Honour commented that the jury had accepted tbe girl’s story. Roberts would be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour and ordered to pay £23 towards the cost of the prosecution, or in default serve three months’ imprisonment cumulative on the other sentence.

COUNSEL’S PLEA TOR MAORI SENTENCE ON POKAU Evidence of good character was adduced by counsel when Pikau Pokau, a young Maori, was brought in for sentence for the manslaughter of Reginald Duggan arid negligent driving causing death. Archibald T. Tidswell, manager of the Tawhiti branch dairy factory, said Pokau had been a supplier for two years. He was honest and of good character. Fl© considered (him a fine type of Maori. His Honour: Dot you know anything about him drinking? Tidswell said Pokau had been the conductor of a Maori orchestra that played at dances with which witness was concerned. One of the conditions made by Pokaru himself was that members of the orchestra were not to take liquor. Pokau was a sober in.au and witness liad been surprised when he heard Pokau had taken liquor before being involved in the fatal accident. The fatality' occurred during the Hawera jubilee celebrations, which were attended by thousands of people, said counsel. One of the jubilee slogans was “It is only once in 50 years.” Maoris,: local and from Patea and Waitotara, took part in hundreds. It was the first time they had joined with the pakehas in such public celebrations. It was an occasion of sinking of tribal differences and the fraternising of hn.pu with liapu. The accident occurred on the Thursday, shortly after midnight. That day had been a big one for the Maori participants in the celebrations. In the afternoon there had been a big liui at which tribal customs had been revived. In the evening the natives were again connected with the festivities. Although they wore quite orderly, there was a good deal of subdued excitement. ACCIUSFIDI PERSUADED TO DRINK The local Maoris were responsible for hospitality to t.lie visiting natives, who were encamped near an old pa. It was the duty of some of the Hawera Maoris to drive the visitors to and from tlie camp, and in this work Pokau assisted. He had run one party to the camp just after midnight, and it was on the return journey to get more passengers that the tragedy occurred. It was nearly four years before that Pokau (wlioi was not yet 22) in a fit of boyish foolishness took some liquor and got into trouble. Afterwards his mother spoke to him very directly on the subject and secured ' him to pro-

mise he would not take liquor again, lie had kept that promise till the night of the accident. The Maoris he drove, back to the caanp had a quantity of liquor and on alighting from the car they asked him to have a drink before lie returned to Hawera. He refused, but they importuned him and as a final argument quoted the jubilee slogan—, ‘Come,’ Pokau, it is only once in 50 years.” Then Pokau foolishly partook of the liquor. . He was a Maori of rangatira blood and fanned 42 acres on which he milked 26 cows. He had a reputation for fair dealing. He belonged to the Tongahoe hapu of the Ngatiruanui tribe, and both on liis mother’s and father’s side he could trace liis whakppapa, or genealogy, back through chiefs and.warriors to the middle of the 14tli century, to Turi, the captain of the Aotea canoe in which his ancestors came to New Zealand; and before that liis whakapapa went far back to ancestors in Hawaiki. Pokau was one of the younger natives of good standing who by following pakeha methods of farming and business were a fine example to their people. Counsel pointed out that it was not ye.t 100 years since these people had been brought under British rule and in contact with pakeha customs ; that less than a century ago the fierce tribes from the Waikato raided, their Taranaki foes; that it was only in the ’sixties, comparatively recently, that these natives were involved in the Maori War, with all its turmoil and unrest, culminating with the arrest 6f Te Whiti and Tohu at Parihaka in 1881; that less than 100 years ago Pokau’s ancestors were, living primitively in the stone age. SENTENCE AS DETERRENT “This has been referred to as ‘a bit and nun’ case,” proceeded counsel, “but I ask can we expect from a man like Pokau the poise that the pakeha has after long centuries of civilisation?” Ho recalled that when Pokau got out of •his car after the accident he heard •someone say: .“He is dead; send for tlie police.” A knowledge of the psychology of the native mind would explain what he did after that. He returned to his car, got into it, and went. Counsel recognised the law must be vindicated, but he asked mercy for this young native, who had since February suffered an agony of mind and a. contrition that made amends abundantly for' ivhat he had done.

His. Honour isaid everything possible had been said in Pekau’s favour, but, perhaps unfortunately for him, the position regarding motor car accidents in New Zealand was becoming almost intolerable. Only q small proportion of the accidents reached, the courts. Negligent driving, was becoming rampant, and it was a duty of the courts to pass a sentence as a deterrent to others. Pokau had previously been convicted of drunkenness and drink was apparently the cause of the death of the victim of the accident.

In view of what His Honour proposed to do with Pokau’s license he would not be likely to offend again in a similar manner, but the court must inflict a deterrent punishment. Pokau would not be sent to an ordinary prison, but to a Bbrstal Instituion, tbe lowest terms for which was two years. That did not mean lie would necessarily serve two years, for the: Prisons Board reviewed the sentences and if a man behaved himself well he might be allowed his freedom sooner. The sentence would be that Pokau Would be sent to a Borstal Institution for a tei-in not exceeding two years, his driving license would fie cancelled, and. after leaving the institution he would be prohibited from driving for five years. BIGAMIST DEALT WITH OFFENCE COMMITTED AT WAITARA. Counsel for John Francis Johns, who had pleaded guilty to bigamy at Waitara, said that this was not tlie grosser sort of bigamy in which a married man went through a form of marriage with a young girl. Whatever else might be said against Johns it could not be said that he had injured a young girl in that way. He had. been very frank with the police. The clemency of the court was asked for.

His Honour said that owing to the fact that almost every session recently there were cases of bigamy, it was essential the court should not treat such offences lightly. He agreed that it could, be -said for Johns that he had not injured a, young girl; for bigamy of that kind a man had recently been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. However, he had injured in some manner the widow with whom he had gone through a 1 form of marriage and would be punished with 12 months’ hard labour.

THEFT AS SERVANT DIFFICULT TYPE OF CASE Regarding Elmest Keith Roberts, who in the lower court- admitted two charges of theft as a servant from the Farmers’ Co-op. Auctioneering Society, counsel said he was 28 years of age, married, with two children, one two years odd and the other about six months. Unfortunately he appeared to have got into debt and in an attempt to meet his liabilities .he followed the course often taken by other people with bad results —gambling. He lost money and in order to recoup himself took money from his employers. His Honour: He took £220 since October. Counsel: Ye.s.

Hits Honour: It is. extraordinary how a man does this sort of thing. What form did the gambling take? Counsel: Horse racing. His Honour: Has he been borrowing money? Counsel: I -am not instructed that lie borrowed any. He got into debt. His Honour mentioned cases in which men advertised they would lend money to clerks a,nd then made them re-pay heavily in interest-.

Counsel said there was nothing like that in this case. Evidently Roberts’ moral character was not strong. In struggling with the extra expense of married life he bad succumbed to temptation. As chief clerk he had been mainly in charge of the cash and had not had a sufficient check on him considering his moral weakness. Otherwise he was of good character. His Honour: There is more, than the taking of money. The falsification of books is mentioned in the depositions. Counsel urged that this was a ease in which a short sentence ’would probably meet the position. His Honour said lie- always had considerable- difficulty in dealing with this tvpe of case. A man who had gradxially worked himself up to a good position and then committed theft caused himself the loss of tha-t position and precluded himself from obtaining another. One was strongly tempted to he lenient, hut His Honour could not overlook the [fact tli,at there might be clerks in similar positions trembling on the brink of a similar act. It was not so much, to punish Roberts as to deter others that ho ordered Roberts to be detained for reformative purposes for a

period not exceeding 12 months. His Honour wanted to give Jenient treatment tout had to look at the deterrent aspect of the matter. However, the sentence was a light one. RELIEF WORKER’S FORGERY SIX MjPNTHB’ imprisonment

Ernest John Kent, who had pleaded guilty to forgery, was, said his counsel, 38 years of age, a casual labourer in the Inglewood district. His wife had. not been heard of for five or six yeai:s and from pollioe inquiries it seemed she had gone to Australia. Kent had been a relief worker at Bedford Road, Inglewood. On three jobs it was custom ary for half a man’s pay to be. allotted to liis wife. Kent did not know where his wife lived so lie gave her address as his own. Kent was convicted of a petty theft in 1924 and in 1936 was proceeded against for a breach of probation. Since then, and until this occasion, he had made a genuine attempt to live a .respectable life. This forgery was of a milder type than usual —it was done to obtain money that he regarded as his own ajjd that litis wife was not likely to receive in any event.

Counsel urged the man should be give nprobation, or should be ordered 1 to come up for sentence if called upon. He was now working for a farmer near Inglewood for his keep and a nominal wage, and the was willing to take h.im back. His Honour said he was sorry he could not do what counsel suggested. In ordinary circumstances he might have granted probation, but at the present time it seemed necessary the, court should see that offences of this kind were visited with a deterrent. However, the sentence would be a light one of six months’ hard labour.