MAGISTRATE UPHELD BY JUDGE, BUT

Wanganui Chronicle, 9 November 1950, Page 7

MAGISTRATE UPHELD BY JUDGE, BUT

GAOL TERM REDUCED

An echo of the transport procession held in the city on September 15 to mark the change-over from trams to buses, when Ivan Clifford Pram, bushman and labourer, aged 32, became intoxicated and caused a disturbance, was heard in the Supreme Court, Wanganui, yesterday. Pram, for whom Mr W. G. Clayton appeared, appealed against sentences totalling five months’ imprisonment imposed on him in the Magistrate’s Court. After hearing submissions, Mr Justice Hay upheld the sentences, but made them concurrent instead of cumulative. This means that Pram serves two months, instead of five.

“I have formed a very clear view of my duty in this case,” said His Honour. The three offences—disorderly behaviour while drunk, using obscene language in a public place and resisting the police—arose out of the same circumstances. This meant that Pram had really committed one offence which was subdivided into three.

To send a man to prison for five months under these circumstances was imposing a penalty out of all proportion to the degree of his fall, His Honour added. Pram’s medical background also provided mitigating circumstances. The sentences of one month for disorderly behaviour and two months on each charge of obscene language and resisting th.e police should stand, but should be concurrent instead of cumulative.

The Crown solicitor, Mr N. R. Bain, who appeared for the police, respondent in the appeal, said Pram was sentenced in the Magistrate's Court, Wanganui, on September 8. He was not represented by counsel and entered pleas of guilty on each charge. The appeal was apparently on the grounds that the sentence was excessive. CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED. Outlining the circumstances of the case. Mr Bain said that on September 15 there was a large gathering in the city for the transport procession. A ceremonial ribbon was stretched across Victoria Avenue near the Ridgway Street intersection and a traffic officer told the police that he saw Pram break the ribbon. Later, Pram was being arrested for disorderly behaviour while drunk, but resisted violently and repeatedly used the obscene language. He had previous convictions and in February last was fined £5 for disorderly behaviour while drunk. “It took three constables to overpower this man and put him in a taxi,” said Mr Bain, who also stated the maximum penalties for the offences under which Pram was charged. His Honour commented that magistrates were in more direct touch with these cases, but he wondered what actuated the magistrate in making the sentences cumulative instead of concurrent, which was the more usual procedure. Unfortunately, certain facts concerning Pram’s medical background were not placed before the magistrate, said Mr Clayton. In May, 1943, Pram went overseas on military service and for two years served In Italy. “The main facts that I wish to emphasise concern his unfortunate medical history,” counsel added. “He is a typical epileptic and has suffered from the complaint since h.e was 13 years of age. In 1944, while serving in Italy, he had a fall from a motor-cycle, which caused head injuries. He suffered pain and since then his nerves have not been good.” MEDICAL TREATMENT. Since last February, counsel added, Pram had been treated by Dr. McGregor. Pram actually remembered very little of what happened on September 15. Similarly, he had no recollection of what happened in February. He could not remember committing the offence on that occasion, or even appearing in Court. His Honour: Is there a medical ex planation for that? Mr Clayton submitted that a man may perform automatic actions quite unconsciously. Pram could have been in a state of post-epileptic automatism when these offences were committed. His Honour: If a man took liquor voluntarily, might he not know that he would be responsible for what occurred? Dr McGregor said in evidence that he first attended Pram on February 24 last. During the past eight months he had been treated for epilepsy, and as far as witness knew had carried out this treatment conscientiously and regularly. At one stage he was admitted to the Palmerston North Hospital for observation by a specialist. There were two types of epilepsy and one was characterised by a very transient period of unconsciousness, in which a person might drop and object and have no recollection of a seizure, said witness. When seen after his arrest on September 15, Pram said that he could not recollect anything. At the time of the offence in February he remembered nothing for three weeks. Tt could be deducted, however, that liquor would have an undesirable effect on him. “I have been told by relatives that one bottle would knock him over,” witness added. In reply to Mr Bain, witness said that he had advised Pram to keep off liquor. “What is the alternative to a short term of imnrisonment?” His Honour asked Mr Clayton. Mr Clayton: That he ke kept in the country, away from liquor, and that he be able to continue treatment. His Honour: How can I justify setting the sentences aside? HIS HONOUR’S COMMENT. Pram must be kept, off the liquor and th? best way of teaching him to leave it. alone would be bv giving him a short term in gaol, His Honour added. Mr Clayton: T am more inclined to the view that medical treatment would have the best effect of keeping him off liquor. His Honour: One can’t help feeling sorry for a man like this. Apparently h.e is a decent fellow, but when he takes liquor to excess he goes into a public concourse, uses language like this and resists the police, which is a serious matter. This can’t be treated lightly. I would regard resistance of the police as the most serious of all. The language used by the magistrate described the genoral situation— Pram had made a public nuisance of himself. “My general disposition is to uphold lhe magistrate if that can be done,” His Honour added. “The sentence should not be interfered with,’’ said Mr Bain. “Il is a serious thing to interfere with the local magistrate, unless he has gone vitallv wrong on a question of principle. Pram had not taken notice of a

previous warning and that is why the magistrate imposed the sentence he did. This man was aware of his epileptic trouble and was advised to keep away from liquor. He promised in February to take out a prohibition order, but failed to do so.” After hearing further submissions, His Honour commented that he had always had respect for the decisions of th ' magistrate in Wanganui. The sentences were upheld, as stated, but made concurrent, instead of cumulative.