RIOT SENTENCES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 493, 30 June 1932, Page 5

RIOT SENTENCES.

Courts Not Instructed by Cabinet. REPLY TO DEPUTATION Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Tine 30. An emphatic denial that instructions had been given by Cabinet to magistrates or judges concerning the passing of sentences on those convicted of offences committed during the recent disturbances in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch was given by the Minister of Justice in replying to a deputation from the Alliance of Labour which sought to secure a revision of the sentences, on the grounds that they were too harsh and that no good purpose could be served by detaining the men in custody any longer. “ On Spur of Moment.” Mr A. Cook, president of the Alliance, said that the deputation desired the Minister to review the sentences recently imposed on a number of workers arising out of the recent disturbances at Auckland and Wellington and the tramway strike in Christchurch. A number of the sentences were passed ! on 3'oung men. Discussing the Wei- j lington disturbances, he said he felt sure that the window-smashing was done on the spur of the moment by people who had no idea of setting out to do damage. They had apparently followed like sheep when two or three i had set out to break windows. The | Alliance felt that the men imprisoned •had been punished severely enough, | and it would be a kindly act for the j Government to review the sentences, j Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the Al- j liance, said that Magistrates had imposed sentences as a deterrent in view ; of the circumstances at the time. There had been a tendency to interfere with freedom of speech, and it was felt that some Magistrates had imposed sentences more on account of the. men’s political outlook than anything else. Mr T. Walsh said he considered that Mr Justice Herdman and Mr E Page, S.M., had shown a distinct bias against the workers. It was difficult for one to believe that Magistrates would have imposed the sentences they did unless 1

they had been instructed by Cabinet. The Minister said that he wanted to deny emphatically that there was any class bias, or that anyone had instructed Magistrates and Judges. Su'h a suggestion was entirely wrong, for no one, whether a member of Cabinet or of Parliament, would dream of doing such a thing. Full consideration had been given to the facts of each case before the sentences were passed. Mr Page had delayed passing sentence for a day in order to think the cases • over - . ... The Minister said it was his duty to read carefully through the notes of the evidence of the various cases, and he could say that wherever there was ' a doubt the defendant always got the benefit of the doubt. No one wjuld uphold some of the recent occurrences in Auckland and Wellington. A credible witness had informed him that most of the men who took part in the windowsmashing had been well dressed, and that they were apparently in comfortable circumstances. This being so he could understand the Magistrates imposing fairly severe penalties. No Power to Remit. Before a sentence imposed by a Judge could be reviewed half of it had to be served. The case was then referred to the Prisons Board. Similarly, the Minister had no power to interfere with j a sentence passed by a Magistrate. All j he could do was to ask the Magistrate for a report, and this was forwarded to the Governor-General. The Minister of Justice had no power to remit sentences. If he had this power it could easily be seen that political influences might creep into the j administration of justice. However, if particulars of specific cases were supI plied to him he would consider any j representations made