SEVEN YEARS’ HARD LABOUR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16573, 4 November 1921, Page 11

SEVEN YEARS’ HARD LABOUR.

FREDERICK JACKSON SENTENCED. ADDINGTON ASSAULT CASE. A sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour, was imposed by his Honour Mr Justice Adams, at the Supreme Court to-dav, 00 Frederick Jackson, who had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of attempted rape in respect of a brutal assault on a young woman near the Addington Saleyarde, on the night of October 14. Mr T. TV. Gee appeared on behalf of tho prisoner. In response to the usual question as to whether he had anything to say why the sentence of the Court should not bo passed upon him. prisoAer replied in a. loud voice that he had nothing to say Mr A. T. Donnelly. Crown Prosecutor. stated that he had nothing to say in addition to the observations he bad made on Monday. The prisoner admitted the following previous convictions :—April 16, 1908, fourteen days’ imprisonment for assault; February 9, 1914, theft, three months' imprisonment; September 20, 1916. theft, fined £lO and costs; January 5, 1917, theft, three months’ imprisonment; November 17 1919, theft, twelve months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. Addressing tho prisoner, his Honor said that he had pleaded guilty to one of th© most serious crimes known to law. For the complete crime the maximum punishment was imprisonment for life, and for the attempted crime the maximum punishment was ten years’ imprisonment with hard labour, with the discretion of ‘the Judge to order a flogging in addition The prisoner had pleaded guiltv to the attempt- to commit the crime, and tbs facts disclosed by the evidence showed that the crime was carried out deliberately and with shocking deliberation and violence. There seemed to be no escape from the belief that the prisoner had premeditated the whole offence and made preparations by breaking open the gates of tho place where the crime was committed and making sure that ho would ho able to take his victim to a place where her outcry, to attract attention, would not he heard. But for the fact that prisoner had pleaded guilty and thus saved Ills unfortunate victim the humiliation of having to give her evidence in public, bis Honor said he would be inclined to impose the maximum penalty and flogeing in addition. However, lie would not do this* on account of the fact that the prisoner had pleaded guilty. Prisoner would he sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour.