POWERS OF JUSTICES

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 3

POWERS OF JUSTICES

, COMMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE SENTENCE DESCRIBED AS “ SADISTIC ” (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 25. Describing the sentence of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour imposed by Justices of the Peace on a gaol escapee as “savage or sadistic,” the Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers), said in the Supreme Court to-day that it was monstrous, in his opinion, that Justices should frave the power to impose such a sentence. Savage or medieval punishment should be avoided as far as possible, even in bad cases. “We don’t want to make criminals—savage sentences are likely to make criminals,” said his Honour. This comment was made after he ’had sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour a man who pleaded guilty to 16 charges of housebreaking with intent and one charge of theft from a dwelling. The prisoner was George Ivan Burlace,’a labourer, aged 31, who had admitted the offences at Palmerston North. “The question of a quantum sentence on a prisoner is always a very difficult one,” said his Honour. “For myself, I have been on the Bench for 17 years and find the difficulty as great to-day as when I started on my judicial career., A great deal is said about sentences and their severity. The policy I always adopted was that, as far as possible, lenient sentences should be imposed; but I never hesitated in' imposing a heavy sentence—a severe sentence—when I thought it justified. Sentence for Escaping ‘‘The case of the man who has just been before the Court is one to which I have given special consideration,” said his Honour. “In 1942. after he had been previously convicted in Auckland in 1939 of theft, he was brought before the Court on a number of charges of housebreaking and sentenced to three years’ reformative detention. It cannot be said that the sentence was too severe, but then, some few months after he was sentenced, he escaped from prison. He was brought before Justices on a charge of escaping, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour, cumulative on the sentence already being served, notwithstanding the fact that he had been at liberty a very few days, that there was no violence involved, and no offence committed while he was at liberty.

“In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying it was a savage sentence. A sentence of that kind, even if the man is likely to reform, is calculated to make him worse than he was ever before. “I consider that on that occasion it was—l don’t like to use the word—a savage or sadistic punishment, and I have taken that into consideration in this case. If it had not been for that I would have declared him an habitual criminal, but what the effect a sentence of that kind might have on the man it is impossible to say; I do know this, that after that sentence he was not a very good prisoner. He was a little obstreperous in prison, and it is not to be wondered at.

“I have said on previous occasions and I say again that it is monstrous, in my opinion, that Justices should have the power to impose savage sentences of that kind.

“I am quite aware that what I have said may provoke comment. I don’t mind that.”

To the prisoner, just before he left the dock, his Honour commented on the sentence passed by the -justices. The prisoner, of course, had qualified for declaration as an habitual criminal but he did not propose to make that declaration for a reason he would not indicate in the prisoner’s presence. He proposed to treat the case, not only comparatively leniently, but with a great deal of leniency. But, nevertheless, the sentence would have to be substantial.

The prisoner was warned, and the warning recorded, that if he appeared before the Court again on any charge of dishonesty, he would probably—almost certainly—be declared an habitual criminal.