Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JUDGES’ SENTENCES.

There will be general agreement with the views expressed by Jlis Honour Mr. Justice Reed in regard to newspaper criticism of sentences of the Courts. "It would,” he said, "be an unhealthy state of affairs if a judge’s sentence or judgment should be sacrosanct.” Bia Honour went to to point out that newspapers of any standing when they found it necessary to criticise sentences usually admitted that they might not be in possession of all that was known to a judge. Referring to a particular criticism of two sentences which, on the but face, appeared somewhat unequal, Mr. Justice Reed gave details of the facts which led to the apparent difference in punishment for crimes that appeared to be almost similar in degree of turpitude and in their ill-effect upon the community. In the light of His Honour’s further statement the apparent discrepancy disappeared. There are often trials for crimes that to the ordinary individual appear to be almost in the same class, and should therefore merit nearly a similar penalty. Yet it is seen that one judge may award a sentence of 10 or 14 years’ hard labour -while another, hearing almost similar evidence, apparently considers a sentence of two years’ imprisonment is sufficient penalty. In such cases there arc, doubtless, very good reasons for the great variation in punishment, but it would, as Judge Reed points out, be an unhealthy state of affairs if such matters were held to be beyond the reach of honest criticism. It is better, for the community that undue latitude in criticism is occasionally indulged in rather than there should be none. Fortunately the standing of judges in New Zealand has always been high enough to prevent any reputable criticism of n judgment being construed into an attack upon a judge’s probity or impartiality. It Is because the Supreme Court js so entitled to the respect of the nation that it can afford, and even welcome, criticism and inquiry into individual sentences or decisions.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19280209.2.33

Bibliographic details

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1928, Page 8

Word Count
333

JUDGES’ SENTENCES. Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1928, Page 8

JUDGES’ SENTENCES. Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1928, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert