OFFENSIVE CONDUCT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25672, 21 October 1944, Page 8

OFFENSIVE CONDUCT

TRESPASSER FINED WEAKNESS IN ACT DISCLOSED (P.A.) AUCKLAND, Oct. -20. “This is the second instance I have had of the effects of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal,” said Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., when convicting a man charged with behaving in an insulting manner in a public place.- “It ‘is im-. perative in the interests of public safety 1 that the law should be amended, where necessary, in order to cover the new position.” The defendant was Robert Arthur McSheffrey, who pleaded guilty. Detective Sergeant Tretheway said the complainant had found footprints beneath the window of the bedroom occupied by his two-daughters. With a neighbour he had kept watch after dark, and they had seen the defendant come down the street, walk across the front lawn, and peer through the bedroom window at the side of the blind. The complainant and his friend leaped out and seized him. , “Unfortunately this was’ a State house without any front fence,” said Detective Sergeant Tretheway.- “Because of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, it cannot be classed as an enclosed area, and we are therefore unable to charge the defendant with being found without lawful excuse on enclosed premises. He is liable to a fine of only £5 on the present charge, as compared with a prison sentence of three months if we were able to charge him under the other section.” Counsel for the defendant said ■he agreed that the law'was at fault. The defendant, however, denied, having been on the premises, prior to the night that he was caught. His explanation was that his small child had lost a scooter some days previously, and as he was walking down the stre'et he thought he saw it standing beneath the window' of the house concealed in the shadows: He approached closer, to investigate, but found -It was Jan illusion caused by a pile of gardq'n sticks. At this stape he; was caught. “ There have been many improbable explanations given in this 'court, but I think this must rank as the most improbable of them' all,” said the magistrate. The defendant was fined the maximum amount of £5, immediate, payment being ordered, in default 10 days’ imprisonment.