THE CLEMPSON CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2811, 26 August 1908, Page 89

THE CLEMPSON CASE.

REPORT OP MR JUSTICE DENNIS- ' TON. THE SENTENCE DEFENDED. (Fbom Oub Owk Cokrespohdent.) WELLINGTON, August 21. The case of Ernest William Clempson, who was sentenced at Invercargill last February to three months' imprisonment for falsify«!g a school certificate, aroused considerable public interest at the time. Many people who considered that the sentence was unduly severe petitioned the Government to remit it, an<l newspapers protested against the action of the presiding judge in imposing such a punishment. Yesterday, in compliance with a Tesolution moved by the Hon. J., E. Jenkinson, a copy of the evidence given at the trial, together with a report by Mr Justice Denniston, was laid oin the table .of the Legislative Council. The judge's Teport, which was written on June -20, in reply to a letter from the Minister of Justice acconipanymg- the petition referred to "above, states as follows. — -' v "The prisoner pleaded 'Guilty' to an indictment on February 11, 1808, that toe had committed for.gery by" making a false document — to wit, a false public school certificate, purporting to show that he in the month of December, 1895, had passed the Fifth Standard at tlie Invercargill South School, being a public ■school in the town of Invercargill ; and, on a second count, with having afterwards, on February 14, knowing the said school certificate to be forged, used, dealt with, and acted upon it as if it were genuine. The petition is inaccurate in stating as an element in the sentence that the fact of a previous conviction for breaking a window having been put in left the matter in the position that it could only be dealt with Dy mitiigation of sentence through the clemency of the Crown. In sentencing the prisoner Istated that I entirely disregarded this previous conviction, and that had I thought it a case for probation -I should have had f no difficulty in setting the prisoner at liberty. The petition is also inaccurate in stating that the offence of which he was convicted was' making alterations in the body of an education certificate. It was, as will be seen from, the depositions of Edmund Nebber, a foigery of the whole of the written part 'of the certificate, including the name of th© head master. Alithough not specifically stated in the petition, the main ground for tifoe agitation in which.* it originated was the suggestion that the criminal act of the prisoner was suggested by his desire to find, support for his wife and children. There is nothing in the evidence to support this suggestion. He was in full work as a carter at the time of the commission of the offence and of his arrest. The statement of the accused mad« at th.^ time of his arrest, a copy of which' is forwarded herewith, would seem to show that the matter was concocted along with others. This indicates that the offence was nat committed suddenly or hurriedly, but was wilful and deliberate. The present case is, therefore, that of a man of the mature age of 27 deliberately, and without the temptation of want or necessity forging a document for the purpose of fraudently obtaining a position in the public service, demanding for its due performance honesty and probity. I was aware by my own experience, and by information of the e^yperienoes of other judges, that frauds of this character have been .common. I- have more~ than once had to observe in dealing with applications for probation tihat there was a I danger that obtaining the benefit of the act was being taken for gganted, and of enterprises of theft and frauct 'being lightly entered upon in the persuasion • that the only risk in case of failure would be release on probation. On these grounds I was of opinion that the ca&e was not one for probation, and inflicted what I considered was giving every due consideration to the prisoner's previous good character — the lenient sentence of tliree months' imprisonment. I see no reason for altering that conclusion, and am unable to suy that there are any grounds why any part of the sentence should be remitted. The language of the petition is v studiously moderate. It professes that' those signing it do not by so doing intiend to reflect in any degree on either the justice or the sentence or on its length, but it is obvious that the remission of a sentence passed with full knowledge and considerations of the grounds alleged for such remission will be, and must be, considered as «, reflection on fche justice of the sentence, and incidentally as an endorsement of the opinion and language on and vrith which the matter has >riginated and been continued.