From the Courts

In the Magistrates court last Monday a 22 year old forklift driver pleaded guilty to receiving 2 cameras, cigarette lighters and binoculars. The police prosecutor told the court that the accused's home had been searched after the robbery of a Wellington Chemist's shop. The accused had stated that a friend had temporarily left the property in his keeping and that he knew the property to be stolen.

Counsel for the defendant stated that his client had been ill in bed under heavy medication for the week leading up to his arrest, and just got up before receiving the property. The friend had called late at night and asked permission to leave the property temporarily. The defendant had nothing to gain from the act and had co-operated fully with the police, despite his weakened condition. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the receiving was of a technical nature and should be dealt with accordingly.

Mr Trapski S.M. was of a different opinion. "I'm concerned, and I think that everyone in Wellington is concerned at thefts from chemist shops", he said. "This has overtones which we're all aware of". He fined the defendant $450 court costs $5.

Mr Trapski added that in case any people got ideas from any advertisement of the case the defendant's name was to be suppressed.

The fact that the cameras, watches and binoculars were stolen from a chemist's shop seemed particularly significant to Mr Trapski. So significant that he made cryptic noises about "Certain overtones" of chemist shop thefts — a pretty obvious reference to narcotics. But the defendant had not stolen or received any narcotics. He had not even stood to gain from the crime he had actually committed.

$450 is a heavy fine for such an offence and a large sum for a young married worker to find. In this case at least it may be more accurate to speak of certain overtones of which we're all aware in relationship to the trial rather than the offence.

In the No.2 Court last Friday Mr Wicks S.M. sentenced Brian Warwick Baker to 18 months imprisonment for homosexual offences, involving three charges of indecent assault.

Counsel for Baker submitted that a psychiatric report had indicated that alcohol was the main problem underlying his client's offences. He stated that little harm had come to the complainants and that the offences differed in character to previous convictions of the accused. Baker was able to continue in his employment and the programme of periodic detention and probation suggested by the probation officer's report would be a positive attempt at reforming him.

Passing sentence Mr Wicks stated that he had read the probation officer's report and that everything possible had been said.

"You appear on three charges of indecency with people who have befriended you", said Mr Wicks. "These acts are still crimes in New Zealand, not withstanding the efforts of the homosexual Law Reform Society". Mr Wicks went on to refer to Baker's previous convictions and stated that in his opinion the penalty suggested by the probation officer would not stop Baker drinking.

"The public interest requires that you should be locked up for a while, then you won't be able to drink", Mr Wicks concluded.

Mr Wicks remark is a favourite of many magistrates. The prisons of New Zealand are full of people such as Baker — "Locked up in the public interest". Baker had only recently been released after a period of several months imprisonment for a similar offence. Will the same thing happen again (to the detriment of Baker and the rest of the public) when Baker is released from his current term in prison?

The public interest might be served better if a greater effort were to be made to deal with the problem rather than merely to postpone it.

The practise of imposing terms of imprisonment on homosexuals and alcoholics for the "safety of the community" and the "benefit of society" very often seems an admission that our society is unable or unwilling to cope with such problems in a more constructive manner.

In this country one man in twenty is a homosexual. Such a large portion of the population deserves more attention focused on its problem as a minority than our present laws and their daily practice are prepared to expend.

— By Don Franks