HEWER'S PENALTY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22259, 6 November 1935, Page 16

HEWER'S PENALTY

TEEM OF 2| YEAES GRAVITY OF OFFENCE COMMENTS BY JUDGE EVIDENCE OF A PRACTICE There was a considerable attendance of tho public at the Supreme Court yesterday when George Frederick Hewer, aged 49, described as a medical practitioner, was sentenced by Mr. Justice Fair for unlawfully causing a noxious thing to be taken by a woman in order to procure a miscarriage. Mr. Singer, addressing the Court on Hewer's behalf, said that Hewer was a man of culture and ability, and he had n wife and four young children totally dependent upon him. Ho had now been in custody for thrco months or more. Mr. Singer said his client had boon long under tho shadow of suspicion in regard to another alleged offence, as no" doubt His Honor, in common with tho rest of tho community, had heard. Ho had been unable to escape from the black influence of that shadow unjustifiably cast over him. " Barbarity of the Law " His Honor said tho jury had had clear evidence before it on which it could act in this particular charge. Mr. Singer said that that influence had been created by an erroneous coroner's verdict, quite unsupported and unjustified by the evidence. His client and those associated with him had definitely declared and still declared that with that unfortunate incident they had no concern whatever. Thero was a feeling of grave concern that tho persons responsible wero known, and that for some reason their identities wero not disclosed, counsel continued. The whole of tho burden of the offence had been most cruelly placed on the shoulders of his client alone. Even the names of accomplices were suppressed, and they were completely protected. The penalty His Honor had power to inflict was imprisonment for life. That was tho barbarity of tho law as it now stood in New Zealand. If there were more statesmen among our politicians that blot would be removed. Though the old law still stubbornly persisted, a clear tendency was developing toward greater lenience and consideration. Counsel believed His Honor would be convinced that the. crime of which his client stood convicted demanded _ a light and not a heavy penalty. Discretion as to penalty lay solely with the Court.

Mr. Singer asked His Honor not to inflict a penalty that would shock those whose views were as entitled to respect and who had the welfare of tho community just as much at heart as those who presumed to have a monopoly of the public conscience. Incident at the Trial Mr. Hubble said that Mr. Singer's appeal simply amounted to a plea that the crime of abortion be deleted from the Crimes Act. With that the Court was not concerned,- and it was not the place to argue it. The only person to refer to facts outside the trial had been Mr. Singer. Mr. Singer: My friend opened it, and I had to answer it. With extraordinary ingenuity he asked the jury to banish from their minds anything they might have read or heard outside. His Honor: I think he was bound to do that.

Mr. Hubble said the suggestion that the jury must not take account of outside matters was made in probably half the important trials in that Court. His Honor: Your observation, Mr. Hubble, was necessary and justified, and Mr. Singer's reference to it I do not think is justified. Mr. Hubble said he understood that certain information had been handed to tho authorities from Mr. Singer's office. This was investigated thoroughly by Detective-Sergeant Walsh, and it was found there was nothing in it. He could only say the offence was regarded as serious, and the jury evidently gave the matter very thorough and fair consideration, for they were out more than four hours, and on one of the counts they disagreed. Law's Serious View His Honor said he must exclude from his mind a number of considerations that Mr. Singer had invited him to take into account. The opinions held by various sections of tho community as to tho gravity of this offence was not a matter which ho could take into account. Ho must be guided as to the seriousness with which the law regarded the offence by the provisions of tho Crimes Act. This showed that the person who committed this offence was considered a most serious offender and was liable to imprisonment for life. His accomplices were subject to a lighter maximum sentence. *

The evidence at the trial showed, in his opinion, that this was not an exceptional case, that the prisoner was prepared apparently without demur and without protest to undertake to procure the miscarriage which the jury had properly found he provided tho means for the girl to procure. A person of education and professional qualifications like the prisoner wh# made an attempt of this kind must suffer a more serious penalty than some person who was not so fitted to judge of the gravity of the offence. Not a First Occasion

"A person who shows that he is prepared to commit the offence more or less as a matter of practice and routine," continued His Honor, "is also in a graver position than a person committing it for tho first time. From that aspect it appears that when application was made to him at his rooms, his nurse took it as a matter of course that he would undertake it, and the whole business was arranged in a manner that shows to my mind clearly that it was not a first occasion the practice had been carried out." His Honor said there was a previous conviction against the accused some years ago which he must take into account, but it was not that that would determine for him the term of imprisonment he would impose so much as the factors he had already referred to. He would tako into account that tho accused had suffered already a term of imprisonment awaiting trial for some three months. Ho would bo sentenced to 2S years' imprisonment with hard labour.