Supreme Court YOUNG MAN NOT GUILTY OF THEFT OF BAG

Press, Volume C, Issue 29513, 13 May 1961, Page 14

Supreme Court YOUNG MAN NOT GUILTY OF THEFT OF BAG

Ronald John Blair, aged 22, a jockey, who said he took a 16-year-old girl’* handbag into his car in Cathedral square in the hope that the girl would follow her bag into his car. was yesterday acquitted by a jury in the Supreme Court on a charge of stealing the girl’s handbag. Mr Justice Richmond discharged Blair, who had pleaded not guilty to stealing a handbag and contents, valued at £B, the property of Judith Caroline Watkins, in Cathedral square on February 21. “I feel I am bound to say that I do not think you could have reached any other verdict on the law, the facts, and the charge involved,” his Honour told the jury after it had given its verdict after a retirement of 22 minutes.

"Blair, I hope you realise the stupid behaviour you have been involved in.” his Honour said in discharging the prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) conducted the case for the Crown. Mr P. G. S. Penlington appeared for Blair. Crown s Case Mr Mahon said that Miss Watkins was standing on the bus stop zone in Cathedral square in the evening waiting for the New Brighton bus about 8.30 pun. She had her large handbag on the ground beside her. The accused drove past her in a car, trying to attract attention. He drove round the square again, stopped near the zone, picked up the young woman’s bag, and drove round the Square again. The accused drove round the Square yet again and stopped outside the Cathedral. The young woman tried to get her bag. but the accused drove off, Mr Mahon said. Another youth, Bruce Anthony John Newsome, driving a car in the Square, saw what had happened, and followed the accused’s car up High street, but lost him in the traffic. Later the accused was stopped in Riccarton road by Constable A. W. Barnett, who questioned him about drinking. The constable took the accused’s car keys and told him to call at the Central Police Station in three hours and collect his car keys. Bag In Car The constable would say that the accused took the handbag (produced in Court) from his car before locking it. The constable would say that he gave the accused a lift to the hospital corner, and the accused said he did not know who owned the bag. When the constable went to the police station he discovered that the police were looking for a stolen handbag after Miss Watkins had complained. The constable went back to the accused’s car in Lincoln road, and found that the handbag was in it. Apparently the accused had taken a taxi out to his car and returned the handbag to it

The accused was located at his home the following morning, said Mr Mahon, and made a statement to the police. He said the girl was apparently standing around, and he gave her a yell. She smiled at him. He took her bag, thinking she would follow it and get in the car. too. “The case turns on ■whether the accused intended to deprive Miss Watkins of her bag permanently. You may think that after the ac-

cused had driven out of the city area, he would have had difficulty in returning the handbag to the girl, as he did not know her name or address,” Mr Mahon said. Caroline Watkins gave evidence along the lines of counsel's opening. She said she turned her back on the accused when he stopped his car near her. Crossexamined, she agreed that she smiled at him. “It was natural.” she said. He just leant out of the car and took her bag. She saw him put it in the car. “I was not quick enough.” she said when asked if she could have stopped the accused taking her bag. In the handbag was a notebook with her name and address on it. Detective-Constable J. D Phelan read the statement by the accused. Crossexamined, the witness said that the accused was perfectly frank. The accused had no previous convictions. Constable Barnett, in crossexamination said the accused had been drinking. "Hie accused said he did not know to whom the handbag belonged. He told the accused to look through the contents of the handbag and find out who was the owner. The accused could have said

he would take the bag to the police station. Mr Penlington dSd not call evidence for the defence, and Mr Mahon did not give a final address to the jury. Mr Penlington said the defence did not contest that the accused had taken the bag, but said that at no time did he intend to deprive Miss Watkins permanently of it.

“The behaviour of the accused was not meritorious. It could be described as a prank, or at worst an escapade. but I submit it could nowhere be described as a theft, a very serious criminal charge." His Honour said that the accused, as no doubt he himself would agree, had acted in a silly, stupid way. However. the jury should not convict simplv because of his behaviour. The jury had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at some time the accused had formed the intention to deprive the girl of the handbag permanently before it could convict him of theft. "As a general rule. I do not make any comments upon the facts, as I do not in any way wish to be thought to be weighing too heavily against an accused person,” said his Honour. "However. I consider it my duty to say that I would in no way be surprised if you acquitted this young man of this particular charge.”