ONE YEAR’S HARD LABOUR

Taranaki Daily News, 19 May 1928, Page 15

ONE YEAR’S HARD LABOUR

FIVE YEARS OFF THE ROAD fc ■■ ■ DEATH IN WAKE OF MOTORIST. TRAGIC TOLL OF INTOXICATION. Convicted on charges of driving a ear negligently at Mokoia on February 24 so as to cause the death of Mrs. Richter, and of driving his ear while in a state of intoxication with the result that Mrs. Richter’s death ensued, George Cravy Smith, stock dealer, of Hawera, came before Mr. Justice Reed for sentence in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. As a penalty for what His Honour termed a serious offence of a kind that was becoming all too frequent, the prisoner was ordered to be imprisoned for twelve months with hard labour. In addition he will not be permitted to drive a motor-car on the road again for a period of five years. The prisoner was also ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, amounting to £4O, in default an additional two months’ imprisonment. In pleading for leniency, Mr. P. O’Dea. who represented the prisoner, said that there was no doubt drink was the cause of the man’s undoing. He was a married man, 54 years of age, with a wife and two children, and had lived most of his life in the district. He had been, employed by some of the most prominent firms, and they all spoke in the highest terms of his probity and honour. Mr. O’Dea read letters which the prisoner had received from the late Mr. Newton King in 1924, Mr. H. G. Dickie, M.P., Mr. J. W. McMillan, Mayor of Stratford, Mr. Fred. Bayly, and Mr. W. A. Hewitt, manager of one of the opposition firms to that by which Smith was employed. Counsel said from his own knowledge of the prisoner he could say that thia occurrence had made a big mark on him, and no one more keenly regretted th© circumstances than he did. Apart from the fact that he had taken to drink he "had always been an estimable citizen.

STRONG- MEASURES NECESSARY

In reply to Mr. O’Dea’s plea for leniency, His Honour said it was not a question of leniency towards tho accused. The class of offence had become so common that strong measures were necessary. Addressing the prisoner, His Honour said: “The jury acquitted you upon the major charge of manslaughter, and have found you guilty of the two counts charging breaches of Section 27 of the Motor Vehicles Aet, 1924. That section provides for a maximum penalty of five years or a fine of* £506. I may take it that your acquittal on the major charge, the maximum penalty for which is life, indicates that the jury do not consider that a very severe penalty should be inflicted. There is no question about it, however, that the punishment must be substantial. The jury lias found that you were in a state of intoxication and that owing to your driving the car whilst in that condition the death of this woman occurred. I agree that upon the evidence the jury could have rightfully found no other verdict. “The question as to. the proper sentence in such a case is difficult. Being intoxicated whilst in charge of a ear is the real offence you committed. Being in that condition you might have killed yourself and your drunken companion, or you might simply have damaged your ear, or you might have reached home without an accident of any sort. The real crime, therefore, was bein" intoxicated whilst in charge of the ear. The result which followed wae purely fortuitous. How far, therefore, should the penalty to be imposed be regulated by a consideration of the result? It has long been settled that revenge by society upon an . offender should not be a consideration in fixing the quantum of punishment. REGULATION OF PENALTY. “In principle the amount of the Realty should be regulated by two considerations: (1) Punishment of the offender; (2) as a deterrent to others from committing the same class of offence. If I regard your real offence as being intoxicated whilst in charge of your car, then had you been prosecuted for that offence, having been fortunate enough to escape injuring anyone, you would have escaped with a fine, or a short term of imprisonment, which IB eon side roll by the legislature adequate as a punishment and a deterrent for that offence. This makes the fixing of a penalty, by applying the ordinary principles, a difficult matter. Turning, how-, ever, to the Statute, it is clear that these broad principles are departed from and the result, following on the commission of the real offence, has to be taken into consideration.

“The result in your case has been the death of this unfortunate woman, and the law says I am to regard that in fixing the penalty. In doing so I take Into consideration tho fact that, attributing to you the feelings of an ordinary, decent member of society, the knowledge that you have killed a human being must in itself be a terrible punishment; secondly, that as I propose to prohibit you from driving a motor-car for many years, you will probably be prevented from following your usual vocation and must seek some other source of livelihood.

“Taking these circumstances into consideration, the sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term of twelve, months. I order that your motor-driver’s license be suspended until its expiration,, and that you be disqualified from obtaining a further motor-driver’s license for a period of five years from such expiration. I further order that you pay the costs of the prosecution, amounting to £4O, or serve a further two months imprisonment in default.”