PRISON AND PROBATION

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

PRISON AND PROBATION

Conviction For Perjury

Perjury struck at the ' very root of the administration of justice, and accordingly was treated by the courts as a very serious offence, said Mr Justice Macarthur in the Supreme Court yesterday, when he sentenced George Albert Stewart, aged 23, an apprentice carpenter, to six months’ gaol. His Honour placed Stewart on probation for a year after his prison sentence. Stewart had been found guilty by a jury of committing perjury in the Magistrate's Court at Christchurch on November 18. 1960. by falsely stating, when charged with operating a motorcycle without a warrant of fitness, that he had not been riding the motor-cycle.

For Stewart. Mr A. F Wilding said there was nothing sinister in the prisoner’s background and nothing sinister in the commission of his present offence. The prisoner had an “agin-the-Government” attitude, on which the probation officer had commented. The treatment of the prisoner by two police officers some time ago accounted for this attitude “The prisoner was accused by two police officers of harbouring inmates from a female institution.” Mr Wilding said. “One of the police officers treated the prisoner in a somewhat unbecoming manner and this. I submit, resulted in his defiant manner. The prisoner did complain to the Superintendent of Police in Christchurch about the police officers’ behaviour, and the matter is still under consideration."

Mr Wilding said that if the police had called the two constables who saw the prisoner riding the motorcycle. the lower Court hearing would have been one of credibility, and the prisoner would never have been charged with perjury. He asked the Court, having regard to the nature of the lower Court proceedings, to take the view that the present offence was one of small dimension.

His Honour: Have you considered that the prisoner told a story in this Court which the jury obviously did not believe?

Mr Wilding: I have, sir. The jury may not have believed all the prisoner said, but may have believed some of it.

Mr C. M. Roper made no submissions for the Crown. Imposing sentence, his Honour said that the Court could not possibly consider probation in the first instance. A term of imprisonment was the appropriate punishment. In view of the prisoner’s resentment against authority a period of guidance after the prison term could well assist him.