SHOP-LIFTERS SENTENCED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19007, 7 May 1924, Page 4

SHOP-LIFTERS SENTENCED

RECEIVE 18 MONTHS’ PROBATION

Ruby Lilian Ford and Louisa Minnie Wilson, who had pleaded guilty to charges of shop-lifting from the premises of Mr. T. Warnock, appeared at the Court yesterday morning for sentence.

The Magistrate, Mr. J. 8. Barton, remarked that the case had been des- p cribed by Mr. Hussey, (counsel for the defence), as an extremely painful one, and he (the Magistrate), quite agreed with him. He realised that it must be extremely painful to the parties concerned, their relatives, and counsel. He confessed that his task was not only painful, but a difficult ono as well. Mr. Barton said that in reconciling the interests of the parties, and the interests of the public, ho had gone for guidance to the case of Rex v. Jcffory, in the Court of Appeal 1921. After reviewing this case, His Worship said there were two applications before him, namely for probation and that an order be made suppressing publication of the names of the accns od. In referring to the objects of probation, the Magistrate said that the Probation Officer, in his report, had recommended that it should be granted in this case. Ho felt it his duty to agree with that request, and consequently the accused would be admitted to probation for a period of 18 months, on the statutory terms, which would include reporting once a month, and restitution of the stolen property.

Before His Worship dealt with the second application, Mr. Hussey made* reference to a recent case in Wellington, where the Magistrate, Mr. Hall Walker, referred to the anomaly of handing out probation with one hand and not suppressing publication of the name with the other.

His Worship remarked that he had not noticed the report. He added that the argument was that the publication of the name would undo the benefit of probation. He found it was a most difficult question, and he had given the matter considerable thought. The provision was quite a new one in the Offenders Probation Act. In view of the failing standard and the great prevalence of these cases at the present time, he was inclined to be cynical; ho might say it was Parliament’s only contribution to the problem in recent years. There may be cases in which the punishment that would follow from publication would be out of proportion to the crime. He instanced a case in which publication might compel a company, in order to protect its name, to dismiss an employee who had made a temporary lapse, whereas with discipline the ends of justice would be served. Then, again, if the crime could be described as one of impulse, it seemed to him clear that discretion should bo exercised du favour of an accused. If, however, the crime has been studied, calculated and coldly carried out, the matter become more difficult. His Worship then referred to shoplifting, bicycle stealing, in which there were strong public interests calling for protection. In the case before him the accused acted in consort. In that instance the impulse had to b« communicated from one to the othei and acquiesced in. The thefts covered a woollen costume, evening dress, roll of lace, evening frock, ana sundry other articles. If the theft originated from impulse, before all the articles were collected there was time for the impulse to be spent and a feeling of remorse should have \ asserted itself. ’’This case cannot be described as one of impulse. This is a difficult class of crime to detect, and for that reason I have decided to refuse the request te suppress publication of the names,” concluded His Worship.