INDECENT ASSAULT CASES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8363, 25 February 1913, Page 9

INDECENT ASSAULT CASES

“AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT.” PRISONERS ORDERED TO BIS FLOGGED. Press Association. AUCKLAND, February 24. Flogging was ordered in four in* stances by his Honor Mr Justice Edwards, when passing sentence at the Supremo Court to-day. During tna present criminal session the grand jury, jn view of tho large number of indecent assault cases included in the calender, recommended the use of the lash, and the effect of the sentences passed by his Honor to-day will thus be to carry out that recommendation. His Honor, in passing sentence, commented on the fact that Imprisonment alone had failed to act as a deterrent, and flogging was the only remedy for tho wil. Tho first prisoner to be placed in the bos for sentence was Thomas ’Hammond,' a young man who had been convicted of behaving indecently to a little girl. His Honor remarked that prisoner stood convicted, and most properly convicted, of one of the. mostiieinous crimes deliberately committed that it was possible to commit. Tbe grand jury, whom ho (his Honor) took to represent the community at large, bad recommended that offences of this nature should be punished by the lash. It was the opinion of the grand jury, and it was his (his Honoris) opinion also, that if anything would prevent this clash of crime it was clearly the lash. He (his Honor) intended in all these cases to inflict hogging, and he desired to ask the press to give prominence to his intention. He wished to emphasise that the number of strokes ho intended to orderTn the present case must not be taken as an t indication of the number that would be ordered in future. In future the number of strokes that would be ordered would be materially increased, and would be severe punishment instead of only severe warning, as in the present instances. Prisoner was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with one flogging of ten strokes with the lash.

The next prisoner was an elderly man named Robert Connor, who had been found guflty of indecently assaulting a little girl at Hevonport. 1 ‘it is always distasteful to order a person to bo flogged,” said his Honor in passing sentence, “and it is a remedy 1 never use nolens it is absolutely necessary, it is still more repulsive to order the flogging of an old man whose age should make him a protector of children instead of a aeliler of them. Lest the public think It ihbumane to flog a man of prisoner's age I would like to make it perfectly clear that when flogging is ordered a gaol surgeon is always in attendance when the punishment is inflicted, and be is required by law to stop'it if »t is beyond tho endurance of prisoner. In the present case the circumstances are not quite so bad as they were in the previous case, but the fact that prisoner, on account of his years, is being more leniently treated must not be taken by criminals as a precedent that they will be leniently treated in future, the sentences must be taken as a warning. Over and over again verbal warnings have been given to prisoners* guilty, of this abominable practice, but they have failed, and it is quite clear that practical punishment is the only thirig that will suppress it.” A sentence of throe years’ imprisonment with one flogging of five lashes was inflicted. William Charles Spriggs, a welldressed yonng man, who had also been Convicted of indecent assault, was tho next prisoner to be brought before the court. He handed up a document; (sotting forth the good character pro-* viously borne by him) for his Honor’s' perusal. “The grand jury,” said hi* donor, after reading the paper, “who represent the sense and' good feeling jf the community, have recommended shat in offences like that of which you ,tand convicted, the offender shall bo punished with the lash. Ton are sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with one flogging of ten lashes.” A man of middle age, named Frank tthodes, replied in the negative whoa asked if he had anything to say Why sentence should not be passed oh him for having committed an offence simi’.ar to those committed by the previous prisoners. Hia Honor addressed pnioner in similar terms to his remarks to the prisoners already sentenced. Ho added, that it was impossible to take age as a reason for immunity from the lash in these cases, as, if such, an excuse was allowed, it Would mean that elderly offenders would get imprisonment —that they Would be more leniently treated than younger offenders. It was most lamentable that offences of this kind were as frequently, indeed more frequently, committed by elderly men. A sentence of throe years* imprisonment, with one flogging of tivr lashes, would be imposed. FLAW IN CRIMJES ACT. Thomas Loch, fifty-two years of age, was placed in the box for sentence on a charge of having carnally known • girl under the age of sixteen years. Hr JJamford, representing accused, stated that prisoner had previously borne a good character, although he (Hr Bamford) was fully aware that a previous character had little bearing ou these cases. His Honor: 1 haven’t looked at his record. The Judge remarked that owing to a flaw in the Crimes _Aot he was unable to order the lash in cases in which prisoners had been guilty of actual carnal knowledge, whereas in indecent assault cases, which were , really the minor offence of the twoj he bad such power. Although prisoner was guilty of two charges —one of car-, nal knowledge, and another of indecent assault —he (hw Honor) was compelled by law to merge the Jotter charge into the former one. “Had it not been for that,” said his Honor, “you would have been liable to be flogged, and Hogged assuredly you would have been with the other prisoners, who really have merely acted indecently.” Fn•soner was sentenced to five years’ Imprisonment (the maximum allowed by statute for such offence), his Honor remarking that he would make representations to the Attorney-tieneral to dare the law amended so that it might . d in more logical and just coa-