SENTENCE QUESTIONED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17844, 27 July 1921, Page 9

SENTENCE QUESTIONED.

UNDUE SEVERITY ALLEGED. ArPEAL FROM AUCKLAND. IMPORTANT POINTS RAISED. An appeal important 0 u account of the principle involved was brought before the Court of Appeal—the Acting Ch.H Justice, Mr Justice Sim, and Their Honors M, Justice Hosking, Mr J us tire Stringer, Mr. J ustlce Reed] and M> Jmrt-ire Adams—in Wellington this week, regarding Ihe alleged harshness of a sen|*n.« of one year's imprisonment imposed by His Honor Mr. Justice Salmond when a young man named Henry Richard Jeffry. 22 years of age. wag taken before him at the Auckland Supremo Court and pleaded guilty to the theft of a Post Often Savings Bank book, and also to having forged the signature of the owner of the book. Jrfiiy and the owner had been living together in a hut at Wlungarei. and the ! young man had taken possession of the book and presented it at the local post office. Ihe account, liov.ever, was a Welingion account, and he was informed that he would have to get it transferred. He then made out the. transfer form thereby committing foreerv,' but was arrested, and so did not operate upon the account, if indeed he intruded to do so. : Mr. Allan Moody, who put. the prison- ] «>r's case before the Auckland Court, ap- | peaied in Wellington, and opened his I address to the Bench bv referring to the fact that Jeffry had already been in custody for 10 or 15 days before he came tip for sentence. Counsel had asked that in view of the police and probation officer's report, the man should be admitted to probation, or, at most, should be fined. Jeffry was a man who had previously borne a blameless character. Mr.' Justice Salmond, however, refused to consider the question of probation, and would not look at the efficer'a report, but, said Mr, Moody, it had been the practice in Auckland for the past seven years for the prohation officer to make out such a report for the possible assistance of the Court, and to obviate delays in cases when such a report might be found necessary. Were the report not available, it might mean that the prisoner would have to wait a week or a fortnight while the officer was making the necessary inquiries. Again, probation officers at times made mistakes, and in one case of which counsel knew the report contained a very serious mistake, and had he (counsel) not had access to that report before it was placed before the Court a considerable injury might easily have been done the prisoner. As he had said befdre, Hia Honor refused to peruse the report, and said that he doubted whether any such report officially existed until it was asked for. Sti-ictly, perhaps, that was correct. Mr. Justice Reed: Waa there not provision in the old Act that a report should be made out by the probation officer in the case of each prisoner who had not previously been sentenced 1 Mr. Justice Hosking: That was so in the old Act, and frequently I have sent for the probation officer and. had/ a personal conversation with him. Probation in Practice. The sentence imposed, counsel submitted, was unduly severe. Of late years the law had not been so vindictive as in old days, and sought rather to save a man than to punish him, and the results shown by Che probation system thoroughly justified the system. During the six years during which the Auckland probation officer, the ' Rev. F. R. JeSeries, had held office, 507 ! cases had been referred to him. Of those siv had again found themselves in trouble, ' 39 had failed to comply with of their probation, but the remaining persons, 451 in number, were still satisfactory in theii conduct. Both Mr. Justice Hosking and Mr. Justice Stringer paid tribute to the' very ' good work of Mx. Jefferies as a careful ' and hard-working officer in the interests * of the public. ' 'T am given to understand," said Mr. Moody, "that Sir John Salmond has said ' that he will not give probation in cases of ' theft" Mr. Justice Hosking: "I can hardly understand that statement." Mr. Justice Stringer : "That is the very class of offence for which we used to grant probation, in cases of sudden temptation. ' ." ' What the Solicitor-General Thought. The Court was not in a position to judge thei action of H,ir Honor, said the SolicitorGeneral, Mr. W. 0. MacGregor, K.C., since it oould not know his reasons for his decision, and, after elaborating that point, Mr. MacGregor referred to the practice in the English Courts, where a shorthand report, was taken of such proceedings. It would probably be found necessary to adopt such a course in New Zealand. Mr. Justice Stringer : "Who supplies the shorthand writer? The Crown? It would mean a shorthand report of each case." The Solicitor-General said that he oould not answer that question, but it was plain that something would have to be done. Such a report would perhaps have given quite a different side to the case under consideration. At any rate shorthand reports would be decidedly useful to the_ BenchHe did not think for a moment that there was any question of sudden temptation in the present case. Mr. Moody remarked that his former employers were quite willing to take the young man back again. That surely said somethiig as to his character. Too Much Forgiveness. "I do not think so," answered Mr. MacGregor. "I am afraid that there is too much of that sort of thing. People are far vxk> free to forgive and to take thieves back into their employ. There is no douot that a wave of dishonesty is sweeping over the country; particularly in the North, and the number of crimes is altogether out of proportion to the population. There is only one way to stop crime, and that is-to punish it, and punish it severely. Here is a mac who steals, commits a forgery, and then comes to the Court whining to be forgiven. Such a man should be punished' by a term of imprisonment and not by a warning." In reply, Mr. Moody held that the Court was in precisely the same position to judge the case as Sir John Salmond had been in the Auckland Court; it had the depositions and the police reports before it. "I submit, with all respect to the Court," counsel added, "that the effect of harsh sentences might be other thar. what one might expect at first sight, for one always has to consider that, if juries felt that harsh sentences were to be imposed, they might consider themselves justified in feeling that such sentences should not be inflicted." The Court reserved its decision.