JUMBLED JUSTICE

NZ Truth, Issue 834, 12 November 1921, Page 6

JUMBLED JUSTICE

The Inconsistency of Herdman J.

His Har-sh Handling of Samuel Heath

By what manner of reasoning Mr. Justice Herdman arranges the sentences he imposes at times at the Auckland Supreme Court, is hard to conjecture. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that he is at all consistent. No more glaring case of an offender being- unduly punished could be cited than m the case of Samuel Stuart Heath, whom his Honor sentenced to two years' reformative treatment. That the sentence was unduly severe will be seen from the following facts, which speak for themselves. '

Heath (was a traveller for Burns, Philp and Co., and had collected vai-i---i ous moneys for the firm, but of this money he had. retained £41, because there was sickness m the family. However, overtaken by remorse for what 'he had done, he went to the detective office and there asked to be arrested, explaining that he had not accounted to his employers for £ 41, which he had collected. He was a married man, had held 'many good positions at times, and this was the first occasion that he had fallen to temptation. He put the police to no trouble, and with . A PREVIOUSLY UNBLEMISHED RECORD, it was not surprising- that the probation officer recommended probation. [ But instead of granting- probation, Mr. ! Justice Herdman imposed reformative treatment for a period not exceeding two years. ! Now, for the second case: Lieutenant William Reeve admitted five charges of theft of stores from the Annexe. In this instance, as m the case ol! Heath, it was his first offence, but there was this difference that Reeve, holding a good position, had stolen the articles, not from the goods over which he had control, but from stores m the department of another, so that there was always the possibility of an innocent man being at least suspected. In dealing with Reeve, his Honor saidV HE OUGHT TO SEND HIM TO GAOL,

but decided to put him on probation for twelve months, and ordered him to mako restitution. And Heath, for taking £41, received reformative treatment not exceeding two years.

And yet another case: William Campton, a. carter, also like the s others, a. 'first offender^ admitted being implicated m a series of thefts of goods from the wharf to the value of about £ 500. Bales of blankets, rolls of suiting, -cases of stockings, etc., were amongst the goods taken, but unlike Heath, Campton did not feel sorry for what Jie had done, and make a voluntary confession to the detectives, but he was' arrested at his house, and the place searched for missing- goods. And this man. admitting participating m systematic pilfering of cargo from the wharves, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

In view of the above it will be evident to everyone that

HEATH WAS UNDULY PUNISHEDInstead of being- dealt /with severely (he should have been given every chance, because ha was a man who indicated that he wished to make good. He was unfortunate, perhaps, •• m not having counsel to plead for him, but even so, if the punishment imposed upon Campton and Reeve was sufficient for their offences, then Heath should certainly ha.ye been placed on probation.

It is within the power of the Prisons' Board to consider the cases of prisoners serving sentences, and "Truth" feels confident that if the members of the Board will consider the sentences imposed m the cases of Reeve, Campton and Heath, they will do the right thing by Heath and right an injustice by allowing him his freedom.