USE OF A KNIFE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 264, 6 November 1937, Page 8

USE OF A KNIFE

MAORI WOMAN SENTENCED SIX MONTHS’ HARD LABOUR PENALTY IN JERUSALEM CASE Stating that he could quite see what was in the mind of the jury when it returned its verdict, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), in the Supreme Court at Wanganui yesterday, sentenced Kathleen Waitoa, a Maori woman, aged 38, to six months’ Imprisonment with hard labour for assault causing actual bodily harm to Albert Edward Davey, farmer, of Jerusalem, Wanganui River. In finding Waitoa guilty of that offence the jury had added the words “under provocation.” His Honour thought that the sentence he imposed would serve the ends of justice. It had to be such that it would discourage amongst Maoris and Europeans both the use of a knife or other lethal weapon. Mr. C. H. Clinkard, who appeared for the prisoner, said that he had looked into the ruling of authorities with regard to the type of verdict returned by the jury and had found that similar verdicts had been before the Court of Appeal as there had been doubt as to whether “guilty under provocation” meant guilty or not guilty. Actually it was one of guilty, or could, in this case, be said to be guilty under extenuating circumstances. Counsel submitted that provocation, though not a defence, was justification for using force. “I am not satisfied as to what happened at Jerusalem on the morning of August 28 and no one except the two parties interested knew the true facts of what may have been called i rough house,” continued Mr. Clinkird. “Whatever did happen th£ jury sas satisfied that prisoner was justified in using force, and this might be :ause for modification in the sentence.” His Honour: “I think I can understand what was in the mind of the Jury.” Counsel went on to say that ne would like to direct attention to th? condition under which prisoner was living at the time. His Honour: That is what the jury had in mind. Counsel read a letter he had received from Professor I. L. G. Sutherland, of Canterbury University, in regard to Fhe Maori race. The writer, he said, Is a Professor of Philosophy, specialising in psychology, and who has for some years past been making a study of the Maori people, especially as they are affected by European civilisation. “The Maoris are, in general, lawabiding, but there occur a certain number of crimes by Maoris of an impulsive nature which are to be underwood as an indication of the very dillicuit circumstances in which Maoris are now placed,” Professor Sutherland’s letter read. “In their present circumstances it is very difficult for them to achieve stability of character mcst of them being, as far<is mind and character are concerned, half Maori and half European, not properly integrated as either. Any person’.* character is largely formed by th? influence of social customs and institutions. Mao r i social life is row largely disintegrated, and at the fame tin?? Maori.; ar.? not brought up wholly in terms of European social hfe. with the 1 result that they aie all liaole to be somewhat unstable, less Hell-con-trolled than cither their o.vn ancestors or present-day Europeans. These

circumstances ere particularly to af- | feet a Maori woman in association with a while man, and in respect of a domestic quarrel. Even in Maori times, the Maori temperament was much more spontaneous, so far as emotional expression was concerned, and impulsive action quickly followed strong emotion. In their present circumstances, with their characters less well organised in other respects, this emotional expression may have un- | fortunate results. Whatever the purely legal position, from a psychological and a moral angle impulsive crimes by Maoris should be treated with special understanding. The word equality as between Maori and European is really hardly more than a catch-cry, for the automatic application of the idea of their own ancestors or present day the two peoples are very differently placed, and automatic application of the idea of equality may result in what, from the scientific point of view, is really injustice.” “We in this district,” added Mr. Clinkard, “have more Maoris than in most other districts, and their attitude and the understanding of the Maori mind is a very vital matter.” His Honour said he noticed that in 1907, when only 19 years of age, prisoner had been sentenced to three years’ reformative detention for being a rogue and a vagabond. Only three months before at Gisborne she ■ was ordered to go to a Salvation Army home for a year. He supposed she did not carry out the terms and remain there. She had a very long list of convictions, commencing in July, 1917, and running right up to last year. However, they were mostly for theft, credit by fraud, and for being idle and disorderly. There seemed to have been two convictions in 1920 and one in 1923. However, he gathered from what was done that they were not serious matters. He did not propose to take the least notice of those charges, but would deal with her on the present one. If prisoner had been convicted of offences involving personal violence he would have taken some notice of them. The jury had negatived intent to do grevious bodily harm and its verdict , was at least a merciful one and probably a correct one on the facts of the case. He could quite see what the jury had in mind and would endeavour to give due weight to its recommendations. At the same time the sentence must be such as to discourage amongst Maoris and Europeans the use of a knife or other lethal weapon. Prisoner would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. “I think, under the circumstances of the case, that the sentence should serve the ends of justice,” concluded His Honour. “I don't propose to say anything more about the facts of the case or the conduct of the parties associated with