THE CRIMES ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 March 1920, Page 6

THE CRIMES ACT.

A SERIOUS OMISSION. IMPORTANT DECISION BY MAGISTRATE. Auckland, March 8Decision was given by Mr. Poynton in the Police Court to-day in the case in which Gordon Stewart Mason was charged with having attempted to steal ;£2O. The evidence showed that, accused admitted having urged another man to enter a house and take the money, describing the position of the money, the movements of the inmates of the house, and the best way to enter the premises'The Magistrate said that apparently there was a serious omission in the Crimes Act regarding counselling and procuring the commission of offences. By common law it was a crime to instigate or urge on others the commission of crimes, and it did not require that a crime should have been committed or attempted to make the offence of counselling complete. This, however, unfortunately, was no* Jonger law in New Zealand when the Crimes Act was repealed, and all laws relating to crime not included in its provisions. By its terms there is no offence of coimfielling for theft, arson,, and numerous other' crimes unless the crime has actually been comimtted. It was certainly an unintentional omission, because the New Zealand Code was not intended to relax the lawfor preventing crime, but, if anything, to make it more effective. Justices of the Peace Act, 190S (sec. S3) provides for the punishment of inciters to the commission of summary offences, but this section also refers to Acts already committed. There could not he a clearer case of incitement than this, but owing to the present state of the faw accused -could not be punished either for attempting or coiuisellintr