Truth 'MANY-MIND' MAGISTRATES

NZ Truth, Issue 243, 19 February 1910, Page 4

Truth

'MANY-MIND' MAGISTRATES

Published Every Saturday Moening at iiuke^s i.ake (opf mannbbsstreet), Wellington, N.Z. SUBSCKD?TION (IN ADVANCE), 13S.

PEE ANNUM,

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1910.

Although the erajuk-inad community of New Zealand has allowed its public press to be shackled m many undesirable ways, the voice of tbe people has not yet been entirely robbed of its hard-won independence. It st 11 has the power to criticise freely (m respectful terms) the actions of the administrators Of justice, though more than once m New Zealand press criticism of judges has been un->' wisely resented from the beech. While, vestige of the rights of the press which however, there is left to "Truth" any freely flourish m. other countries, so long will this paper continue to point out the gross inequalities m the administration of New Zealand justice and the class distinctions too frequently made m that administration. Last Monday a glaring instance of a -magisterial inconsistency came under notice m the action of Mr W. Gt. Riddell m suspending sentence on two tramway employes named Roland Jas. Finchan and Richard Smedley Parker. These young men pleaded guilty to the theft of a purse and its contents, valued at £11 l€s. The theft was deliberate, and it was by tVie merest chance that they were detected. It seems that on February 10 a woman left her purse m a Seatoun tram. It was discovered by another female, and honestly handed over ito the conductor.' The conductor, instead of reporting the loss and the find to the tramway office, divided the spoil with the motorman, and kept "mum."' But when the lady who lost the purse advertised her loss, and the advertisement was seen by the lady who found the purse and handed it over to the conductor, suspicions were aroused. Detectives were put on the job and the rest was made easy, so very easy, indeed, that the accused, through their counsel,' publicly thanked the detectives. What the " 'tecs." were thanked for we do not exactly know, unless it was l^r bringing the accused men to justice. The two men had no defence, the ingenuity of I counsel could suggest no excuse, so the

time-honored gag of a gnawing conscience was pleaded on .their behalf, and an appeal made (on account of. their previous good character) for leniency, and a "conie-up-for-sentence-when-called-on" order. Magistrate Riddell agreed to this course, and the young men left the court. "Truth" is not crying out for the gaoling of these young men, both of whom are married and have families. Nor does "Truth" consider that the magistrate erred, y The publicity itself is a sufficient punisnrnent of the men, and we sincerely trust will suffice as a warning to others m such positions as the accused. It is better that a magistrate should err on the side of leniency than on that ol severity, and "Truth wishes that for the sake of the two young men it could eliminate all mention of their offence from the comments now made. But while a magistrate may err oh the side of leniency, it is also desirable that he should be consistent m all cases that come before him. Only last week a man charged before tbe same magistrate with tbe theft of sevenpence was fined. Instances could be quoted by the score where this same magistrate, under circumstances equally extenuating to those urged m the case on Monday, was deaf to all entreaties for leniency, and laid down the axiom that dishonesty,' where it involved a breach of trust, must be met by gaol. There have been instances of late where Mr Riddell has ordered imprisonment for . young and sorely-tried men, who yielded to temptation. Previous good character may have actuated the magistrate m imposing a small term of imprisonment ; .nevertheless, gaol it was, and gaol it was henceforth to be. Mr Riddell maintained that the Probation Act was not meant to apply to a certain class of offender, but it has been only m New Zealand that judges and magistrates have; thus interpreted that the intention of the Legislature is to apply the Probation Act only to certain cases. With every respect for the judicial mind of the Dominion' "Truth" holds that judges and magistrates, m distinguishing between offenders (always, of course, : allowing for the circumstances attending the commission of a crime) are flying m the face of public opinion. Judge and magistrate-made law is a farce that must be dealt with sooner or later. There is danger m granting unlimited discretionary power to judges, who, as a rule, are class conscious, • and who, therefore, are apt to be prejudiced and liable to be unable to differentiate between the rights of the subject and those of property. The Probation Act m New Zealand has, as elsewhere, been abused. Now there is a danger of its application being limited, aud we find the tendency is fast growing to reprieve a murderer, or release a bludgeoner, while a thief, whose oflence is against "proputty" and not society generally, is imprisoned with the utmost rigor. It was due to the late brilliant, but erratic, W. pV Crick that a First Offenders Act first 'ecame law m any part of Australia. It was a measure intended to temper the severity of justice. It was an enactment principally intended for the salvation of the young, and the poor man. The tendency nowadays is to render the humane provisions a dead letter of the law. Its abuse has made justice a mockery, its- admioistration a sham. It has been distorted and twisted out of recognition. It does not save erring men and women, who are first offenders, from the taint of prison. Ws are beginning to recognise also that we are not governed by .the laws the people's representatives frame, but by laws which judges make, and for the administration of which they will be held responsible for by tie great Judge of all.