AFFRAY AT MOERAKI

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23334, 28 October 1937, Page 18

AFFRAY AT MOERAKI

MAORI SENTENCED EIGHT MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT OFFENCE VIEWED SERIOUSLY A sentence of eight months' imprisonment 'was imposed by his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court yesterday on Ira Panapa Porete (commonly known as Ned Pollett) a Moeraki Maori, who appeared for sentence on a charge of breaking into the dwelling of his brother, Paana Reweti Porete (Fuller Pollett), and annoying him and other persons. The charge was the fifth of seven which were brought against the accused as the consequence of an affray at Moeraki on the night of July 2, the more serious charges being attempted murder, wounding, assault with intent to cause actual bodily harm, and causing actual bodily harm. Porete was acquitted on the major charges, and the jury, which took more than three hours to consider its verdict, recommended that he be bound over to keep the peace. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the accused.

Mr White said that the accused was a Maori who farmed land at Moeraki, and although he had a list of previous convictions, the probation officer's report showed that he was a good, industrious worker, although subject to fits of temper. There was no question that when the offence was committed the accused was labouring under a considerable sense of grievance at the loss of his property, but counsel submitted that the court should remember he was a.Maori, and that a century ago, his brother's action. according to Maori tradition, would have been considered a very serious breach, calling for drastic action. Obviously, he could not be expected entirely to suppress an hereditary trait of this nature when he was under great emotional stress. It was evident from the rider of the jury that they were entirely in sympathy with the.accused, and in dealing with him, counsel asked the court to take into consideration that he was a Maori, that he had been seriously injured, that his bail had amounted to voluntary banishment from his home, that he had already been in prison about five weeks, and last, but not least, the jury's rider. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr "F. B Adams) asked the court to proceed on what the Crown considered only a reasonable view of the case—that the accused went to his brother's house armed with a deadly weapon. The'jury had gone out of its way to add a rider, stating that the accused had acted under intense provocation, but he submitted that there was no foundation in the evidence to justify such a rider. Moreover, there was nothing in the actions of his brother to suggest or insinuate that the accused had suffered what ought to amount to provocation with any reasonable man. " Besides their unjustifiable rider," Mr Adams continued, "the jury further trepassed

on his Honor's province by suggesting a punishment. We know more about the accused than the jury. l ' Mr Adams went on to enumerate the accused's previous list of convictions, which showed that since 1924, he had been before the court on two charges of assault, one of setting Are to a building and one of theft. About a year ago he had more than once stated in the hearing of the police that he would murder his brother. On behalf of the police it had to be stated that the accused was a dangerous, ill-tempered, savage individual, and his case could not be met, it was submitted, by binding him over to keep the peace, as suggested by the jury. The man already had a criminal record, and in the interests of the community,, the court should take a serious view oi the offence. His Honor said he was quite sure* that the rider added by the jury was intended for his assistance, but in his judgment the accused's offence was one of the most serious of its kind, and was the prelude to a desperate fight which resulted in serious injury to himself and more serious injury to the man whose house h broke into. " People inclined to violence as you are," his Honor told tht prisoner, " must be taught that they cannot go with impunity to a home and smash the house. This is not the first time you have been before the court for violent or improper conduct, and with the full material before it, the court would be trifling with the security of people in their homes if it merely bound you over. A man of your violent temper must have his will reinforced, not by soft words, but by the fear of consequences." Imposing a sentence of eight months' imprisonment with hard labour, his Honor added that the accused's late housekeeper was entitled to leave him and go where, she pleased, ar.d there was no provocation that the law could recognise in the fact that she chose to go to his brother's house.