"...TO REASON WHY"

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 253, 23 December 1940, Page 5

"...TO REASON WHY"

MYSTIFYING DISCREPANCY IN FINES FOR IDENTICAL OFFENCES SOME OBSERVATIONS "Their's, not to reason why . . might have applied to the valiant lads of the Light Brigade, nnd it is understood to apply to the serfs and yes-men under Hitler's sway, but in presentday democracies*, which iincludes New Zealand, and concerning us more particularly, Whakatane, the public has the undisputed right to reason why and there is some wondering at present. The public's medium for expressions of approval or disappoval is the press.The press lias a duty in this regard and has a duly also to bring to the public's notice any inaccuracies or inconsistencies which demand attention in the interests of the community. In the Matter of Precedents This article is prompted by lhs fact that a bookmaker, charged in the Police Court on Saturday, was( fined £25, when the last defendant to appear on this charge was fined, £-15. And this is whero{ wc reason, why. Why the distinction? The remark of one member of the Bench, "I suppose the war has affected his business, and it looks as though he is only in a small way," is—well, find an adjective. 'Surprising" is hardly the word. Was the defendant charged with something to do with a reduced business? Indeed! Does that alter the offence? And the 'small way." We are in a position to know the number of bets listed in the book handed to thci Bench and when it is considered that the warrant was executed at approximately 11 a.m., and Southern racing did not commence until noon, the true extent of the 'bus-

ness' is revealed. The Parallel It must be understood that we arc not criticising the defendant, nor are we concerned with the extent of his 'business.' But the fact remains that last February, the last occasion on which a bookmaker appeared in the Whakatane Court, saw a fine of £45 imposed on a gaming-houSSe charge. And again it is asked, "Why the difference?" The war had been in progress some time when the last, offender had a fine recorded against him. The war, surely, affected him as well. It was stated when he appeared that he had had two picvious convictions. On Saturday the prosecuting officer informed the Court that defendant had two previous convictions. The Bench was aware of the precedent and was aware also that the Act under which the charge was brought provides for a maximum penalty of £100 foi a first offence. And while on the subject of precedents we have no knowledge of any other cases where the' court has been criticised in this manner and> it must be emphasised, we are not concerned with what appears to be extreme leniency. It is the mysty fying discrepancy in the fines for absolutely identical offences which prompts the interrogatory nature of this article.