REGAN SENTENCED.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 18025, 21 May 1930, Page 9

REGAN SENTENCED.

JUDGE’S STRONG COMMENT A BRUTAL CRIME. LACK OF HOME TRAINING. Before passing sentence of seven years’ hard labour on Claude Regan for a serious crime at Hamilton, His Honour said: “I do not propose to deal with the general question as to whether the punishment of flogging can ever be justified, or can ever serve a useful purpose in the case of the sexual pervert,” he continued. “I propose to deal only with the facts of this case and to consider —with some remarks by the way—whether a flogging should he imposed or not. “The first fact is that the- girl was herself, to some extent, responsible for the dangerous position in whioh she found herself when she came to be alone with the prisoner, near a vacant section of land, about midnight. It appears that this girl of 15, with another' girl of 14 as a companion, went, unescorted, to a public dance in Hamilton. There they met, for the first time in their lives, the prisoner and a companion of his, another jockey. This girl of 15 tried to dance with the prisoner, but found that she could not do so, because the prisoner was under the influence of alcohol. The two girls and the prisoner and his companion left the dance hall at about 11.45 p.m. At one stage the prisoner stopped, ostensibly to ask the girl a question, and the other two walked on ahead. Prisoner then committed a ferocious assault to ■which he has pleaded guilty. Other Jockey Censure. “In passing, I desire to say that the other jockey, who'saw what was going on, turned away without either coming to the girl’s assistance or going to seek for aid. This jockey deserves the gravest and strongest censure for his conduct. On the other hand, the young man of 19 and the taxi-driver who later did come to the girl’s assistance are to be warmly commended for their actions, although their assistance did, in fact, come too late.

“I desire to say, also, that it is a grave, as well as a sad circumstance that a girl of 15 years should be allowed by her parents or guardians to go, unescorted, to a public dance. This case, in a tragic way, shows the need of adequate home training and supervision. If that had been available for this girl it is a reasonable inference that she would never have been in the company of the prisoner. “This case also raises in a tragic manner the question whether the proprietor of every dance hail, and the organisers of every public dance, should not quite voluntarily see to it that obvious juveniles are turned away from public dances, unless in charge of an escort. I make no general charges. . I merely say that no such control seems to have been exercised at the dance to which these girls went. Much public anxiety would be allayed, I think, if some such steps were taken. Control of Dance Inadequate. "Much public anxiety would also, I think, be allayed if the proprietor of every dance hall, and the organisers of every public dance, would take voluntary but rigorous steps to eject any person under the influence of liquor. Again I make no general charges. I merely say that the evidence in this case shows that the girl could not dance with the prisoner because he was under the influence of alcohol. He was not so ejected, and the control of the dance seems to have been inadequate.’’ Referring to prisoner’s condition, His Honour said the report of the mental hospital authorities showed that he was suffering from a mental disorder, induced by a fall in- a hurdle race in April, 1927. While he was not in such a state as to warrant his committal to a mental hospital, his behaviour showed the effects of his mental condition. The disorder from which he was suffering caused an increased susceptibility to the reaction of alcohol and a diminished appreciation of moral responsibility. Addressing the prisoner, His Honour said apart from the general question as to whether a flogging could ever serve a useful purpose in the case of sexual perverts, he found that he was not justified in meeting the prisoner’s own brutality with the brutality of the lash.” Prisoner Not Repentant. The Judge stated that the probation officer at Hamilton reported that prisoner is now 21 years of age; that he was at school until he passed the sixth standard; that prisoner is (in the opinion of the probation officer) not normal, but a sexual pervert; that prisoner is in no way repentant for his conduct toward the girl, but thinks his actions quite proper; that prisoner is cheeky and impertinent, and not amenable to discipline.