SERIOUS CHARGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23637, 22 October 1938, Page 24

SERIOUS CHARGES

TWO MEN SENTENCED DIFFERENCE IN CIRCUMSTANCES Sentence on charges of carnal knowledge of girls between the ages of 12 and 16 years was passed on two men in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Kennedy. George William Thomas, aged 28, married, with five children, was sentenced to reformative detention for nine months, and James John Green, aged about 25 years and married, was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. His Honor said that the latter case, in which Green had pleaded guilty, was different from the former in that the prisoner did not seek to bring about the crime.

Mr G. M. Lloyd, who appeared for Thomas, said the prisoner was 28 years of age, and had a wife and five , children to support. He was married when he was 20, and had spent six years of his married life at sea. It appeared that the comparatively free-and-easy life at sea had caused him to forget his responsibility to his wife and family. Counsel made a plea for probation. This was prisoner’s first serious offence,‘the girl concerned in the case was over 15 years of age and was “ rather a bad lot,” according to the Crown’s own description, and he had his wife and children to keep. There was no excuse for such a crime, but counsel suggested that there were mitigating circumstances in this case. The jury had made a recommendation to mercy. Apart altogether from the moral character of the girl in the case, said Mr J. B. Deaker, who appeared for the Crown, the evidence had shown that the whole of the initiative had come from the prisoner. It was clear from the evidence that the prisoner had sought the girl out, made secret appointments with her, and taken her to his own crib, his Honor said. A deterrent sentence would have to be imposed. The prisoner was sentenced to reformative detention for nine months. “Victim of Circumstances” For Green, Mr J. B. Thomson said a plea of not guilty had been entered in the lower court but later changed to one of guilty. The reason for the first plea was that it was then thought desirable that the whole facts of the case should be brought before the court. Throughout the proceedings the prisoner had been exceedingly frank. His father had been an invalid for some years, which fact was, no doubt, partly responsible for his association with undesirable people. Mr Thomson discussed the history of the offence, which he said was not a case of a man taking advantage of an innocent young girl. The girl was 15 years and nine months old. The prisoner’s age was 20, and he had been left alone in a three-roomed crib with the girl for an aggregate period of three weeks. Counsel suggested there was a complete absence of the unpleasant feature? usually associated with cases of this type. The prisoner had fallen a victim to circumstances that were not of his making, and Mr Thomson asked for probation.

The story of the case showed that apparently there was a low standard of morality in this home, Mr Deaker said. Nevertheless, the prisoner had been left in a position of trust, ‘and had abused that trust. His Honor stood the case down until later in the afternoon, and when he had reconsidered it he said that, in his view, it was different from the other case in which he had passed sentence. “ You did not seek to bring about the crime,” he said, when addressing the prisoner, “ but you were placed in circumstances in which you did commit it, although you should not have done so.” The difficulty in this case was that there was some doubt as to some of the circumstances. His Honor said he did not feel able wholly to accept the version given by the girl concerned. There was more in this case then giving way to temptation. He could not acquit the prisoner of blame, but there was sufficient in the circumstances greatly to mitigate the penalty. The prisoner would be sentenced to imprisonment for two months.