LAW SHOULD BE AMENDED

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVI, Issue 23029, 21 October 1944, Page 4

LAW SHOULD BE AMENDED

Result Of Court Of

Appeal Decision

Magistrate Outspoken

< N.Z.P.A.) AUCKLAND. Oct. 20. ■This is the second instance I have had of the effects of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal," said Mr J. H. Luxford. S.M., when convicting a man charged with behaving in an insulting manner in a public place. "It is imperative in the interests of public safety that the law should be amended. where necessary, in order to cover the new position."

The defendant was Robert Arthur McSheffrey, who pleaded guilty. Detective-Sergeant Trethcway said that the complainant had found footprints beneath the window of the bedroom occupied by his Uvo daughters. With a neighbour he had kept a watch after dark and they had seen the defendant come down the street, walk across the front lawn and peer in the Bedroom window at the side of the blind. The complainant and his friend leaped out and seized him.

“Unfortunately, this was a State house without any front fence,” said Detective-Sergeant Tretheway. "Because of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, it cannot be classed as an enclosed area and we are. therefore, unable to charge the defendant with being found without lawful excuse on enclosed premises. He is only liable to a fine of £5 on the present charge, as compared with a prison sentence of three months, if we were able to charge him uiider the other Section.”

Counsel for the defendant said he agreed that the law was at fault. However, the defendant denied having been on the premises before the night that he was caught. His explanation was that Jois small child had lost a scooter some days previously and, as he was walking down the street, he thought he saw it standing beneath the house window, concealed in the shadows. He approached closer to investigate, but found it was an illusion caused by a pile of garden sticks. At this stage he was caught.

“There have been many improbable explanations given in this Court, but I think this must rank as the most improbable of them all,” said the Magistrate.

Defendant was fined the maximum amount of £5. immediate payment being ordered, in default 10 days’ imprisonment.