page 4

From, the Courts

by Les knight

Before Mr. Hobbs S.M. last week, a man came up for sentence on a charge of dangerous driving. It was said that the man had little money and because of that it was considered that a fine would ba inappropriate, so that he was consequently sentenced to Adult periodic detention. It may be that a fine would have been inappropriate anyway, because of the seriousness of the offence, but the decision was not based on this reasoning. This was not entirely Mr. Hobbs fault, however, this 'answer' to the problem was recommended by the probation officer and condoned by the defence lawyer so that the magistrate thought it the best course to follow.

I realise that this was the pragmatic answer in this case but it does seem a little strange; if this man had more money he might have been fined instead, but then a fine is less of a penalty to a man with money than a man without any.

It is sad to see the same old thing repeated again and again in the Courts. An alcoholic woman pleaded guilty to an indecent language charge, was duly convicted and discharged having been kept in custody since the offence.

The whole thing is a farce yet it must be a part of these persons' existence; the arrest on a petty charge, retention in jail then a small fine or conviction and discharge. It is no wonder that many regard the court with contempt or plead guilty without seeming to care about the outcome.

It seems that when a case is fully outlined to a magistrate, with all the mitigating factors involved then he is prepared to show a little compassion in an individual case. A man appeared before Mr. Bradford S.M. charged with stealing some childrens' underwear from Woolworths. Even though he had previous convictions for similar charges, Mr. Bradford convicted and discharged him when he heard that the defendant was a social security beneficiary, who had not worked for two years as he had three young children to look after since his wife had left him. Despite the fact that I think that such a petty complaint should not have been brought to court anyway, I feel that under the circumstances the result showed genuine understanding and reasonableness.

This can be contrasted with a very similar case a while later, where a girl was charged with stealing a child's jersey from McKenzies. She said nothing in her defence and was fined $75. It could have been that there were no mitigating circumstances anyway, but the point that this shows is how important it is to say something in one's defence. Silence is construed as guilt, it seems.

A man appeared before Mr. Bradford S.M., this week on two charges of assult. Angered at someone abusing his girlfriend at a party, he had thrown a beer bottle at a wall above two people, showering them with glass, necessitating them to have stitches to cuts in their heads. However, he was represented by a lawyer who said all the right things; how he came from a good family, that he was only being chivalrous and that he was a computer programmer to whom a conviction would spoil his chances of promotion in the future. The suprising outcome was a discharge under S.42 Criminal Justice Act, leaving his record blemish-free. I would not say that he should have been hit harder, merely that it would be rairer if persons of lesser occupational status be afforded the same kind of leniency in similar situations.