AN "ODIOUS" CRIME

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22717, 1 November 1935, Page 3

AN "ODIOUS" CRIME

BLACKMAILER SENTENCED FIFTEEN MONTHS' HARD LABOUR A sentence of 15 months' hard labour Was imposed yesterday by his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy upon John Albert Megget, who appeared for sentence in the Supreme Court upon four charges that, with menaces, he demanded money from Herbert Frederick Sincock with intent to steal it. His Honor commented that the crime was an odious one, and demanded fitting punishment, but he took into consideration the jury's rider that it considered that the prisoner was labouring under severe mental stress during the period covered by his letters. Mr C. J. L.. White, who appeared for the prisoner, suggested that it was obvious and must be conceded that the jury's rider accurately set out the true state of affairs during the period, in which the.letters were written when it stated that the prisoner was suffering under severe mental stress. No man in his right senses would have signed his name, to such a series of documents or would have rung up 20 or 30 times in the one evening. Counsel said that the mental state of the prisoner seemed to have been a progressive thing, and round about September it appeared to have reached its climax. He suggested that Megget's mind was temporarily unhinged. The prisoner was 49 years of age and had lived all his life in Dunedin, where his family was lyghly respected. After commenting that his character must have been satisfactory in View of the fact that he had remained for 29 years with the one firm, counsel said that Megget had given way to some extent to drinking, which was also of a progressive nature and had reached its climax at the same time as the letters. At the beginning of the year he and his wife had been separated, and he had lost all the money which he had saved through having to sacrifice his home. Ho had blamed Sincock for his trouble, and it had become an obsession with him. After saying that the prisoner was a first offender, Mr White added that Megget realised the seriousness of his conduct, and in a statement to the police had said that he would not interfere with Sincock again. There had been no recurrence of the trouble after he had been interviewed by the police. His action was due to the combined effects of his drinking, his jealousy and his obsession. He proposed to call two witnesses in regard to the previous good conduct of the prisoner. His Honor: The probation report is in your favour in that matter. Mr Adams said he would make that admission, with the reservation that Megget's drinking had led to some neglect of his wife and family. Ronald Ellis Brown gave evidence that he had known the -accused for seven or eight years. He w*s a scrupulously honest man, whose moral character was irreproachable. He had been fond of his children and his home till this trouble. Ho had given way a little to drink. William Reid Sligo, who said he had known the prisoner all his life, stated that members of the family all held a high character. He knew that latterly Megget had given way to drink. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said that at the close of the trial hie Honor had found occasion to say that there was no foundation for the allegations made against Sincock. With the additional material which was then available to him in the police file he was able to say without hesitation that the allegations were entirely without foundation, and that was the view of the police also. Continuing, Mr Adams said that the trouble had been duo to drink. Megget came of a good family and his relatives occupied good positions. His drinking, however, was serious. The separation between the prisoner and his wife had nothing whatever to do with Sincock, and was not even related to suspicions regarding the latter. Ho did not propose to go into the reasons, but in letters written by the prisoner there was material to show that he blamed himself for the separation. Referring to the suggestion that Megget had acted under the influence of mental stress, Mr Adams said that a perusal of the letters did seem to indicate that he was in a state of mental, stress and aberration, and that at the time he wrote to Sincock the matter had become an obsession. That did not excuse him, but to some extent explained the virulence and violence of the letters. Handing in the police report, he commented that while the prisoner had been receiving £4 10s per week, and had agreed to pay 25s per week in maintenance, he was substantially in arrears. That seemed to indicate.that.his feeling for his wife and family did not go so deep as had been suggested. In sentencing the prisoner, his Honor said: Prisoner at the bar, you appear before me for sentence on;four charges of blackmail. The threats extended ! from April till September, and culminated in your sending open post cards containing offensive suggestions to the victim's club. I have little doubt that this was intended as a foretaste of wTiat was in store for the victim if he did not make payment. You made mention in your correspondence that you would be a thorn in the side of the victim, digging deeper and deeper as the weeks went by and that you would concentrate on him. That you appear to have done as best you could. Your declared intention, to use your own words, was to drag Sincock to the gutter. 1 will assume, as the jury by its rider has indicated, that you' were labouring under great mental stress during the time when you committed your crimes. That was the jury's rider, and my own opinion is to the same effect. As your counsel has mentioned, you apparently became wrongly obsessed by your unfounded suspicions. The crime is an odious one, and demands fitting punishment, but in imposing punishment I will take into consideration the jury's rider. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned and kept at hard labour for 15 months. That is the sentence on each charge. These sentences are to be concurrent.