Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8360, 13 September 1890, Page 4

A Jodge of the Supremo Court occupies a somewhat unfortunate position, inasmuch as he lias no one to advise with as to the sentences he passes, and no means of correcting any wrong view he may take up. lie may stumble along doing a good deal of mischief without knowing of it, or even hearing of it. There is no power of remonstrance or correction at all, except what may be said in a newspaper, and even that may never be looked at, for Judges have been known who did not road the newspapers. But, at all events, we feel bound to give expression to the very general sentiment of astonishment at some of the sentences passed during the present session of the •Supreme Court. We will cite a few instances, and then we will put it to anybody whether they are what sentences should be—namely, deterrent. A man named McLean broke into the jeweller's shop of Mr. 1 louden, and was only caught by accident. He had got over a wall, and cut the glass out of a door, being provided with the proper implements. Mr, lleston, the gaoler, reported that he had undergone five years' penal servitude in New South Wales, and His Honor said he could not treat this as a first offence. The plea put forward by the prisoner's counsel was, that the sight of the jewellery was too much for McLean, and he yielded to a "sudden temptation !" the " sudden temptation" resulted in his breaking into the premises in the deliberate way above mentioned. For this crime, he got twelve months' imprisonment. Mr. Howden, who had locked and barred his premises, was told by His Honor that " he had acted very imprudently, and had he not returned sooner than was announced on his notice the whole property would have been carried off," McLean, who is able to form a very shrewd opinion on such a subject, was, we are informed, jubilant at the light sentence ; he expected seven years. The gum robberies passed off in a very harmless way for the perpetrators. The property involved altogether was about £1600, and the offences were aggravated by being in some instances committed by servai ;s of the victims. Yet one man gets off with four months' imprisonment, while another is released on probation. One man pleaded guilty, and then afterwards is allowed to withdraw the plea, and there being no corroborative evidence of the statements of Belsham, who was concerned, he is discharged. Cattle stealing has always been regarded as a serious offence in this country, where the crime is very difficult of detection. Yet a man who pleaded guilty to a charge of killing an ox with intent to steal the carcase, is released on twelve months' probation—that is, he received no punishment whatever. Perjury is also a very grave crime, because while a man may protect his property or his person, he is at the mercy of anyone who may make up his mind to commit perjury. Besides, perjury is a crime against a Court of Justice, it is difficult to sheet home, and when it is so, it should be severely punished. Yet the man was discharged, or as close to that as possible, having been ordered to be kept under probation for six months. His Honor said he did not look upon it as a serious offence, in the face of the temptation afforded by the new Act, which gave a prisoner an opportunity to give evidence on his own behalf. Surely an Act of Parliament, according a privilege to a man, should not be regarded as a temptation to crime. Then in the ease of Funcke, His Honor thought it 11eres., i to administer a severe rebuke to two of the witnesses, i

They had gone to arrest a man ; who had killed a constable a short time i before with a shot from a revolver, and who had blazed away at a steamer full of people, and they did not fire till they believed he was about to shoot them. Yet His Honour tells them that if the man had been killed they would have been tried for murder, "and probably hanged! ; ' as if no jury would have had a word to say about it. His Honor might have warned these men that even"in effecting the arrest of a murderer persons must be cautious in using firearms. Hut for the Bench to tell these men who went to assist the police, and to arrest a murderer, that they ought not to have taken firearms with them, and that they ran a narrow escape from being triad for murder "and probably hanged," is certainly too much. We would like to know if Mr. Justice Conolly would go to arrest a furious ruffian armed with a revolver, which he was discharging at all and sundry without firearms, and whether he would not use them too if lie believed the man was about to fire at him? , A Judge of the Supreme Court, as we have said, has no check or correction upon his action, but the sentences he gives are keenly watched by the public to see if they " fit the crime.' and are likely to be a terror to evil-doers. They are also watched keenly by the criminal class, who may think it worth while to 'run the chance of a few months' probation.