DESERTION CHARGES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 76, 10 September 1941, Page 2

DESERTION CHARGES

THREE SOLDIERS BEFORE COURT MARTIAL POINT OF ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE RAISED Wellington, This Day. Three soldiers of the 2nd N.Z.E.F., ! including one who served in tlu Great War and had done six months’ service I in Fiji during the present war. were I charged with desertion before a distinct court-martial at Trentham yestcr- i day. In each case a report of the pro- | j ceedings will be forwarded to the conj veiling officer, Brigadier N. W. McD. Weir, N.Z.S.C., and sentence will be ! announced when promulgated. The constitution of the Court was:— I , Major S. 11. Gould, president; Major J. I C. Holmes, Captain Iv King, M.M., mem- j hers, and Major A. B. Sievwright, E.D., j judge-advocate. Lieutenant 14. N. Vick- i orman was prosecuting officer, and Sec- j ond-Licutcnant G. Sainsbury defending officer. Private Carlyle Pardoe was charged with desertion in that he was absent without leave from 23rd July to 20th August, when he. surrendered himself at Trentham camp. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecuting officer said the ques- ; lien for the court was whether 36 days ! absence without leave constituted de- | sertion. Evidence was given that accused was jdu. back in camp on 23rd July after I seven days’ sick leave. He actually I returned on 28th August, having been posted as a deserter on Ist August. | . I Accused, to the president, said he had nothing to say on his own behalf. 1 j The defending officer said that to es- | ! tablish desertion, as distinct from ab- 1 jsence without leave, it must be shown j that there was intention to stay away, . or in effect, desert a duty of the Army 1 I altogether. It was difficult sometimes lo distinguish between the two offences, i II asked that this case be treated as absence without leave. Mere length of • absence was not evidence of desertion. A soldier could be absent a year and t not be guilty of desertion. On the other hand, he could be away only six hours and be guilty of desertion. It was all a*, matter of intention, and in _ this case the accused returned volunt- . arily in uniform. 74 DAYS’ ABSENCE Private Gordon Smith Wilkinson was I charged with desertion on active service 4 by being absent without leave from 1 16th June till apprehended by the civil I j police at Feilding on 27ih August. | e j The prosecuting officer said that ac- i - • cused’s absence of 74 cays followed aj I, | term of service in Fiji. He was still on ! active service when he deserted, and j must have realised that during his ab- j e! sence he avoided movement with other | I I troops. It was not sufficient for accused j -1 to say, in effect, “I was arrested in unis j form; therefore that shows I did not in--3 : tend to desert.” g J The defending officer said that inteny | tion and motive for desertion must be s proved. The fact of 74 days’ absence was not in itself proof of desertioji, e and evidence of this absence was all there was before the Court. Accused served in the Great War and had served six months in Fiji in the present war. He came back and probably tried the “old soldier’s” trick oi wanting more leave and just taking it. The judge-advocate, addressing the court, said the criteria of desertion as ). against absence without leave, were the a items showing intention. The facts in s’ thif case were accused’s absence for 74 o days and his being arrested 114 miles •- from his camp. Time, place and dis--11 unoe were factors in establishing de y :ertion. Accused might well have re )r mained in uniform to get the advan--11 taget of it. It could be seen from his n ribbons had served ir the Great War and he could truthfully tell people

he had served in this. Thus, as an old f soldier, he could expect hospitable treatment. Accused’s conduct sheet showed that he was aged 40. He had been charged with absence without leave for 15 days before district court martial in Septem- I ber, 1940, when the sentence was one of reduction to the ranks (from sergeant). 1 ! Private Ronald Edward Jukes, aged 124, was charged with deserting on 25th May, 1941, in that lie absented himself I while in arrest, from the detention bar!racks, Trentham, till apprehended by th civil police at Dunedin on 21st August, wearing civilian clothes. This soldier was not represented by a defending officer. Evidence was given that accused wus sentenced to 90 days’ detention by a distzi ' court martial at Trentham in May last on a charge of desertion. In that case, he had been absent without leave from 4th December, 1940, to Ist May, 1941, when he was arrested at Blenheim earing civilian clothes. Accused, who pie. ded guilty, made a statement that he had been advised by a friend that she was in difficult circumstances He had been worried about her and anxious to assist. After serving six days of the 90 days’ detention he de cicied to escape and see what he could d( to help her. He escaped, dressed himself in civilian cloL.es and went to | Hamilton to pick up more of his peris nal belongings. Then he went to . Dunedin, where his friend was, and got ! a job. His idea was to get money to j help his friend and, when she was no j longer embarrased, to return to camp. ; He knew when he deterni ned to escape I > that he would have to face another court martial, but though, he would stand by his friend whose difficulties were not of his making. He was genuinely anxious to serve his country 1 and to go overseas at the first oppors tu.. He was a volunteer.—P.A.