SENTENCE reversed

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20217, 19 September 1935, Page 7

SENTENCE reversed

“JUSTICE MUST BE FAIR” By Telegraph— Press Association WELLINGTON, September 18. A sentence of three years’ reformative tree’...ent which was imposed on Richard Coughlan, by the Magistrate, Mr W. Maunsell, was reversed by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court. Mr P. S. K. Macassey, for the Crown, said the prisoner was originally charged before the Magistrate, Mr E. C. Levvey, at Invercargill, with the theft of a cheaue for £26. The cheque was not cashed, but the prisoner obtained a suit of clothes on the strength of it. The Magistrate was aware of the prisoner’s previous convictions—about 32 altogether—and admitted him to probation for two year. The prisoner left Invercargill for the north, and the last heard of him by the probation officer was about the end of January. There was no suggestion of dishonesty or other criminality on the prisoner’s part since he was admitted to probation. Mr Maunsell, under the Offender’s Probation Act punished him for the original offence, and for a breach of probation, with the maximum sentence he had power to impose. The Chief Justice said the prisoner undoubtedly had a bad record. There were no fewer than 30 odd convictions against him—but eight, for example, were only for drunkenness. Then, again, he noticed that another group of five convictions included one for drunkenness. These offences were all committed on the same day. Apparently they had arisen out of the same set of facts. Then, again, in February, 1916, there was another group of five of them for drunkenness, and all apparently arising out of the same set of facts. On this particular occasion the accused was charged with stealing a cheque, and was brought before the Magistrate at Invercargill. The man for some time reported to the police in accordance with its terms of his probation. Then he went into the country, “for all one knew, with the intention to get work." He failed to report, and was arrested and brought before a different Magistrate at Blenheim, who firss of all sentenced him to the maximum term of imprisonment, which could have been imposed by a Magistrate, who dealt with the original offence—twelve months’ imprisonment, and in addition sentenced him to the maximum term of reformative treatment namely, three years, which could be imposed under any circumstances by any Magistrate. The effect of the sentence was that the prisoner had to remain in prison for two and a-half years and possibly longer for an offence which could be met by a term of probation. Justice must not only be fair, but must seem fair. It did not seem to him that the prisoner, whose case was thought by one Magistrate to be a proper one for probation, should be dealt with in such a manner by another Magistrate, when brought up later, merely for a breach of a probation order, without, as far as known, having committed any acts of dishonesty or criminality. The Judge reversed the sentence of three years’ reformative treatment, but said he had no jurisdiction to deal with the other matter.