Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 37, No. 10. May 22, 1974

From the Courts

page 2

From the Courts

A man, 29, was charged with frequenting a public place with criminal intent.

Because of a complaint, a police detective went to the Courtenay Place toilets. He noted the man had been in there an unusually long time so entered the cubicle next to him. The defendant glanced over the top. When questioned by the detective, he said he was homosexual (a crime in the eyes of the law) and possibly was waiting for a pick up.

Counsel said his client had entered the toilets to urinate. He'd only looked once at the complainant who exchanged no similar looks. The defendant gave no encouragement and didn't take it up any further when he realised the other person didn't have similar attitudes to himself,

Mr Hobbs convicted and fined the man $50 and costs.

Again, such cases as this only punish the results of oppressive laws. Why should someone be driven to such behaviour? Cases such as this reinforce stereotypes of homosexuals without attempting to solve the injustices. Public attitudes towards homosexuality are affected by such cases in much the same way as bigots claim negroes must be a degenerate people because they live in slums.

••••••••••

A 23-year-old man pleaded guilty to a charge of theft and changed his plea from not guilty to guilty on a charge of attempted arson.

For stealing a cheque for $52 sent to his de facto wife he was convicted and fined $200.

Police prosecutor said that the defendant went to the pub one night after having numerous arguments with his wife. He was later met by her and some friends at the pub. They then went to a party. The woman went home by herself and when the defendant arrived home later he was given two bags and told to get out. He then went to the basement, got some petrol and poured it over parts of the house then lit a match, but did not ignite the petrol.

The defendant's lawyer said he's been kicked and abused by his wife and friends at the party and that the alcohol had made him lose control. He and his wife had been arguing all night and when he was told to leave he got angry and wanted to scare her. The defendant insists that he only wanted to scare her and did not attempt to set fire to the house.

At this point the magistrate interrupted and asked the lawyer "why is your client pleading guilty to attempted arson if you are saying the exact opposite in mitigation".

The lawyer repeated just what he'd said before. "The defendant said to me that he did not intend to set fire to the house, he only wanted to scare his de facto wife, who he is now reconciled with."

The defendant is now living with relatives in Porirua and has had regular employment over the last five years. He hadn't appeared in court since his fast offence five years ago.

He was sentenced to six months adult periodic detention and ordered to pay restitution.

Judge Puppet

For the first court appearance several weeks ago the defendant did plead not guilty. The case was as a matter of course remanded because of the not guilty plea so the police, could find more evidence for prosecution. He probably changed his plea the following week because of police harrassment as they searched his home and pried into his personal life to find out more information and just wanted to get the whole case over with. He'd been remanded three times. The majority of people plead guilty in court so that they can have the case heard then and there and don't have to return to such a demoralising institution. They don't want to be hassled by cops either.

••••••••••

In the Wellington magistrate's court a youth was charged with having in his possession an offensive weapon.

Complaints had been made by people in a coffee bar who saw the defendant showing a knife to some companions.

Counsel for defence said there was no vicious intent involved at all. It was too wet a day to go to work so the youth and his mates had gone out paua diving. The knife was used to get the paua off the rocks. Back in town they went and had a few drinks then entered a coffee bar. When they were seated he pulled out his knife, showed it to his mates, put it back in its sheath and forgot about it shortly after he was arrested.

He was convicted and fined $40 and costs. While still in the dock, the defendant asked Mr Hobbs SM, who was in possession of the knife, if he could have it back. The magistrate refused.

••••••••••

A 17-year-old youth appeared for stealing 35c worth of petrol. He said his car had run out of petrol and he wanted to get it home. As the car was parked near a service station he took enough to get him home. He could have taken more but didn't.

The magistrate Mr Hobbs, noted the boy had been released on probation at the beginning of this year and said that the court couldn't really afford to have him carrying on In this manner and sentenced him to four months Juvenile detention. One could hardly describe the boy's activities as being criminal or threatening to society.

••••••••••

John Sutherland pleaded not guilty to distributing a document without the name of the publishers printed on it.

The leaflet was about the proprietor of a Porirua dairy, Charles Muncy, and alleged among other things that Muncy treated Polynesians in a discrimatory fashion. The point of the leaflet was to reach people who were dissatisfied with Muncy to see if anything could be done about their complaints.

Muncy and two other witnesses said that they had seen Sutherland distributing the leaflets. One of the witnesses had recognised Sutherland because she had previously met him when he was circulating a petition calling for better hospital facilities for Porirua.

Counsel for Sutherland established that Sutherland's leaflet did have a box number on it which was also the address of the Porirua branch of Hart. He produced another pamphlet, issued for children in Porirua, which also had no printers or publishers name on it. The witness, a police constable admitted that the second pamphlet was produced by the New Zealand Police Department

Sutherland's counsel said that the offence was failing to have a publishers name on the document. Sutherland had not known that this was a requirement of the law. The fact that the police had committed the same offence showed what an easy mistake it was to make.

The magistrate said that Sutherland's list of other offences proved he'd been indulging in this sort of activity for a considerable time. All of the offences proved that Sutherland was nothing but a pest, he said, and convicted him imposing a fine of $20 plus court costs and witnesses expenses. He ignored the point that Sutherland's activities in the area of hospitals, for instance, showed that he was anything but a pest, and that the leaflet in question was similarly well intentioned.

Needless to say, no charges were brought against the police for their illegal publication.

••••••••••

To a charge of depositing dangerous litter without lawful excuse a youth pleaded not guilty in the magistrates court.

The complainant, a middle-aged, middle-class woman, said she saw a man on the back of a truck late one night and caught a glimpse of a hand going over the side of the truck and then a bottle falling and smashing on to the road near a group of people beside the truck.

The boy, who had no counsel, asked the complainant if the person on the back of the truck was lying down or sitting.

She replied that he was sitting, that she couldn't identify the person and that she didn't think there could have been another person on the back of the truck but she couldn't be sure because it was very dark.

A police constable was the second witness. He said he pulled up in his car beside the truck and advised the defendant that a complaint had been made. The youth admitted being on the back of the truck and saw the bottle roll off. He didn't tell the driver to stop and pick it up but said he Intended to do so after they'd dropped off a friend.

The defendant said he and his mates had come from a party in Miramar where he'd had very little to drink. He said he definitely wasn't drinking on the beck of the truck and that the bottle had probably been on the back of the truck for some time.

The police prosecutor asked why he hadn't stopped and picked it up. The boy said they wanted to get his friend home first because he was pretty full and feeling sick.

Summing up, Mr Hobbs SM, said the defendant claimed he didn't drop the bottle over the side of the truck but there was no doubt that he was in the position of being able to stop the bottle from rolling off. The rest of the evidence (that of the police and the complainant) appeared to be against him. He was convicted and fined $25 plus court costs.

The boy had pleaded not guilty and from his evidence it was obvious that he believed that he not committed the offence. He left the court totally frustrated as the case was decided by whose evidence the magistrate decided to believe.

Too many young people already plead guilty to offences they did not commit, just to get it over with' as they know they won't be believed. A number of this defendant's friends had come along to court to give him their moral support. Like the defendant, they will have left the court disillusioned with their chances before the law.

••••••••••

A 17-year-old boy who came from Blenheim to live in Wellington for the first time last February was sent to borstal on each of nine theft charges and one charge of assault.

The prosecuting sergeant read out the charges laid against the boy who pleaded guilty to each. Twice he had unlawfully taken motor vehicles and caused minor damage by driving round the city. Articles stolen (mainly from departmental stores) included jeans, one shirt, one tie, one pair of trousers, one jersey, one shopping bag, a gold plated chain and a mileage meter. The assault resulted from an unsuccessful attempt at snatching a lady's handbag. The boy hit her when she screamed causing her to fall to the ground, recieving minor injuries.

When arrested the boy admitted he'd been stealing from city shops for his basic requirements such as food and clothes.

Mr Hobbs SM said that the defendant had obviously been associating with undesirable elements in the city and that he agreed with the probation officer that the boy's attitude was one of indifference to the law. The fact that he only knew the boy for the few minutes he was in the dock did not cause him to hesitate in his sweeping judgement. Nor did he give consideration to the problems the boy must have faced in the city that caused him to commit his rash crimes. The boy, for his part, gave the appearance of not knowing what was going on. He did not appear to listen to the charges and contested none of them, whether he felt he was guilty or not, He just muttered 'yeah' at more or less appropriate intervals, obviously wanting to get the ceremony over with as soon as possible. "Indifference to the law" certainly, but why?

••••••••••