MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1916. INCONSISTENT PENALTIES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXII, 23 October 1916, Page 4

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1916. INCONSISTENT PENALTIES.

It is unpleasant" to criticise judicial decisions, because, as a, rule judge or magistrate is quite the best judge of what ought to be done on the facts which he has personally investigated. But inconsistencies in penalties, unless they are explained and harmonised, nurt th.e'public conscience and are calculated to do mischief. Lately 3 in the Magistrate's Court, Hawera, ' there have been several convictions for evasion of the stamp duty. In every instance the fines were remarkably heavy. We disclaim any sympathy with people ,who designedly cheat the revo-

nue, and where the facts disclose what the lawyers call "tire guilty mind" a „ ~ x. fa t . , ~ smart penalty cannot be complained of. But'even in such cases there should be some rotation between the punishment meted out, say, in Taranaki, Welling4- - rl i -r "ci"iih.. ton ana Canterbury. In the cases recently before the Hawera Court the fines ranged from £10 to £5 for each offence. At the time these fines seemed to be somewhat heavy, but we abstained A x • 1 x! °"«**«-j *Rom comment simply on the principle that a. magistrate's discretion should he respected, and having in mind the fact that if on petition good f o<,A can be shown, the executive authorities in Wellington may reduce a penalty, Still, almost contemporarily offenders in Wellington were being fined £2 foi failure to duly stamp receipts. The ■ • n ,, mt ,i. ■ c 4.1. tit iT- Z. circumstances of tho Wellington case were not published, and comparison cannoteasily.be drawn between the penalty there and in Hawera. But last week, at Ilangiora, a man who holds the position of J.P., and had been Mayor of tV, n + «~,7 , i ti j- i the town, and who thereto* may be presumed to be a man of intelligence, and to have not only due knowledge of the law, but also a soecial obliga- ■+;',«, +~ w ■+ ~i. i :,, tion to observe it, was charged with a breach of the Act which, in. its moral asp.ects, was serious. He was convicted of having received £3 in money and •.-•■,•„ ,-, , . , , ■ ; - dividmg the amounts into two separate amounts of 30s e?,ch, and issuing two separate receipts with intent to evade ■ the stamp duty thereon. There is disclosed iu-thi* case a calculated deliberate scheme to defraud the revenue Th e fi«a *~«„ An 4.1- /• i i '', '*. fine was 40s on the first charge and 20s m the sscoiiJ charge. Why, if such a fine was sufficient in Canterbury sh<mld it be necessary to impose the heavy fines record i.Hawera, The court in one place must be doing less than its duty, or in .the other exceeding its duty. Or perhaps, which we are' inclined to believe, there is a medium between the" -.- , A ~~ ■ . "•- two extremes at which justice would have been satisfied. Certainly the prac-

tice as beiw.een the two courts is inconsistent and unjust. .