SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 22097, 18 August 1933, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED SEQUEL TO AN ORGY OF CRIME NUMEROUS CHARGES As an aftermath of what counsel characterized as an “orgy of crime, three prisoners, each of whom had pleaded guilty, appeared at the Bar of the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence by his Honour, Mr Justice Kennedy. The first prisoner was Charles Robert McCreath, for whom Mr John Tait appeared, who had pleaded guilty to nine charges of breaking, entering and theft, to two of theft, to one of breaking and entering with intent by day and to breaking, entering and theft by day. Mr Tait said that the accused had pleaded guilty to a series of charges disclosing a shocking disregard for the rights of his neighbours and he must accept the full measure of responsibility. It had been suggested by the probation officer that McCreath was the leader of the party to which he belonged, but counsel said he desired to make representations to the court on that aspect. The prisoner had been working since aged 14 and had earned a reputation for being a reliable and willing worker. It had been the associations of his leisure hours that had proved his downfall. He was a man slightly below or just of average intelligence and had been associated in the crimes with men of a better education and of greater intelligence. While counsel would not suggest McCreath had been imposed upon in any way, it certainly seemed that the prisoner had been no more guilty than his partners in crime. The series of crimes, Mr Tait added, had really followed as a sequel to the first crime, namely, the breaking and entering of the brewery. Counsel would not suggest in any way that drunkenness would excuse crime, but he would emphasize that had McCreath not been inflamed with drink the idea of proceeding to Dunedin would never have entered the prisoner’s head. The Crown Prosecutor: This man is regarded by the probation officer and the police as a menace to society. He was admitted to probation in 1932, but has shown an entire lack of appreciation of the leniency accorded him. Though he has been employed with carriers he has used the knowledge gained regarding business premises to commit his crimes. His Honour: Prisoner at the Bar, you now appear for sentence on no fewer than 13 charges and you have already appeared before me on three charges of breaking and entering by night, breaking and entering with intent and entering with intent and breaking and entering and theft _at Dunedin, and you are now serving terms of imprisonment for. the crimes committed at Dunedin. You _ were charged in this Court with a crime of dishonesty in February of this year, but were acquitted. You failed, however, to take warning of that, nor did you profit by the probation previously extended to you for false pretences. Indeed, within a month after you were acquitted by the jury, you were committing fresh crimes in Invercargill. Your case, I think, is differentiated to some extent from those associated with you because you had previously been before the Court for dishonesty and had received in acquittal and in probation ample warning of what your criminal course might draw upon yourself. If you were not the leader, then certainly you were a prominent member of a group of young criminals who committed so many serious crimes in Southland. The sentences I am about, to pass on you will be concurrent with the sentences you are now serving and concurrent each with the other. On the charge on March 12, you will be sentenced to reformative detention for three months, in respect of the charge on March 18 you will be sentenced to reformative detention for 18 months, on the charge of breaking and entering by day you will be sentenced to reformative detention for 18 months, upon each of the charges of breaking, entering and theft by night you will be detained for reformative purposes for a period of four years and on the charge of theft you will be sentenced to reformative detention for three months. An order was made for the return of the stolen property to the owners. Associates Punished. George Alexander Parry appeared for sentence on similar charges. Mr Gordon Reed, for the prisoner, said that unfortunately he had become associated with McCreath. In Parry’s favour, however, it could be emphasized that he had been open in the matter and quite frank with the police. As regards the series of charges on the way to Dunedin, counsel said that Parry had been engaged primarily as a taxi-driver and had not entered any of the premises until about Mataura. His Honour: Is it worth while your pressing that, Mr Reed, for in the evidence before me he says that he was approached to have his car available? Mr Reed said that the prisoner had never been in trouble before and counsel asked for leniency. The Crown Prosecutor said he had nothing to add to the probation officer’s report. His Honour: Prisoner at the Bar, you appear for sentence on a total of 13 charges. In sentencing another prisoner, I said that his case was differentiated from the others. You, unlike that prisoner, do not appear by any criminal conduct to have attracted the attention of the Court and I take that circumstance into account. I also take into account and give weight to the fact that you early confessed your crimes and facilitated justice being done, apparently, in the matter. I feel justified, therefore, in imposing a lighter sentence than that in the case of McCreath, lout in view of the long series of offences the sentence must be that I now impose. The sentences will be concurrent with each other. His Honour then imposed terms of reformative detention ranging from three months to two and a half years in respect of the nine charges of breaking, entering and theft by night. William Arthur Stewart (Mr Gordon Reed) appeared for sentence on nine charges of breaking and entering and one of theft.

Counsel pleaded that the prisoner had assisted the police by entering a plea of guilty to the offences, which were part and parcel of the Dunedin orgy. Stewart’s lapse was due to his getting into bad company. Though there were so many charges, Mr Reed submitted that they, in effect, really all arose out of the one transaction. The Crown Prosecutor: I have nothing to add to the probation officer’s report. “Prisoner at the Bar, I have already sentened you at Dunedin for your crimes to a term of nine months’ reformative detention,” said his Honour. “I am able to differentiate your case from those of both the prisoners I have previously sentenced as I do not regard you as the leader. You did not take part in the crimes of March 12 or 18. Nevertheless, you took full part in those of April 1 and 2. I take into account your varly disclosure of your implication in these crimes. The sentences will be concurrent each with the other and with the terms you are at

present serving.” His Honour then imposed sentences ranging from three months to eighteen months’ reformative detention. Forgery and Uttering. Found guilty by a jury on two counts of forgery and two of uttering, Thomas George McCreath (Mr John Tait) appeared for sentence. Counsel said that he had very little to say as prisoner and his family had stoutly maintained his innocence. The fact that the jury had found him not guilty of breaking and entering possibly indicated that they thought he had not been alone in these offences and counsel pleaded for leniency on this count. He had been in custody since his arrest on May 17. The Crown Prosecutor said that the prisoner’s record spoke for itself and nothing could be said in his favour. The probation officer’s report referred to him as a type of individual who preferred to prey on society and live by the proceeds of crime. His Honour: Prisoner at the Bar, from the probation officer’s report you have been in and out of prison a great deal since 1924 and crimes of dishonesty have figured prominently in the list of convictions supplied by the probation officer. It may be that someone else was associated with you, but it is clear from the evidence regarding the forgery and uttering that you took some part if not the whole part. On each of the charges you will be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for two years, the sentences to be concurrent. Leng List of Convictions. Thomas O’Connor, who was not represented by counsel, appeared for sentence on a charge of breaking and entering and the theft of rabbitskins. The Crown Prosecutor: The prisoner’s record speaks for itself. He has had nf> fewer than eight convictions since 1920 in respect "to charges involving dishonesty. His Honour: Prisoner at the Bar, the present crime is adding to your long list of crimes of dishonesty and if you do not cease, it will be the duty of the presiding judge to declare you an habitual criminal. You will be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for two years. Granted Probation. When Albert John Sanders, aged 21, appeared for sentence on a charge of the theft of five bags of rabbitskins valued at £35, his counsel (Mr Gordon Reed) in pleading that the utmost leniency should be shown towards the prisoner, said he was only 21 years of age and had never been in any sort of previous trouble before. ( Unfortunately he had come into contact with O’Connor, the man who had just been sentenced. Sanders, a young taxidriver, was rung up by O’Connor, who induced him to carry the skins in his car down to a dealer. Sanders later admitted that he thought there was something “fishy” about it all, but he apparently did not have the “stomach” to refuse. His Honour (addressing the prisoner): You have pleaded guilty to the theft of five bags of rabbitskins. The probation officer’s report is a favourable one. You do not appear to have been in any way associated in any criminal acts before this present offence and I think I am right in forming the opinion that but for the prisoner O’Connor you would not be where you are to-day. lam glad to give you an opportunity of retrieving yourself and shall extend leniency in this case. You will be released on probation for two years. Civil Busmess. Discharges in bankruptcy were granted Lum You Kwong, of Invercargill, herbalist (Mr Gordon Reed); Edward Eric James, of Clinton, sheep farmer; Hugh Neilson, of Waimahaka, farmer (Mr B. W. Hewat); Edward Phillips, of Woodlands, (Mr Gordon Reed) and Leo Collings, of Queenstown, service car driver (Mr B. W. Hewat). A decree nisi, to be moved absolute at the expiration of three months, was granted Daisy Lillian Mackay, of Invercargill (Mr W. B. Hewat), who petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Robert John Mackay, of Riverton, labourer, on the grounds of a three years’ separation. Winifred Maud Kelly (Mr H. J. Macalister) was granted a decree absolute against her husband, Francis Sydney James Kelly.

BREACHES OF TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY ROBBED. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, August 17. His Honour Mr Justice Reed sentenced several prisoners in the Supreme Court to-day. Until recently employed in responsible positions in the Phoenix Assurance Company, Arthur Philip Poole, aged 37, John William Darroch, aged 23, and Harold Percy Campbell, aged 22, received two years’ reformative, twelve months’ reformative and two years in the Borstal respectively for the theft of money belonging to the company, Poole’s total being £363 16/10, Darroch’s £5B 15/3, and Campbell’s £685. His Honour said a most extraordinary position had been revealed and the three persons had been deliberately robbing the company for some time. As far as he could see from the statements there was no collusion between them —they were simply three, independent thieves stealing from the company. It was a most extraordinary state of affairs and very serious. Albert Lionel Bailey, aged 39, formerly a solicitor at Napier, appeared for sentence on five charges, one involving the theft of £2lll 11/11, three of forgery and one of making a false declaration. On a charge of theft he was sentenced to five years, the terms on other charges being made concurrent.