SUPREME COURT “Firm Sentences Needed As Deterrent For Indecency”

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31003, 8 March 1966, Page 9

SUPREME COURT “Firm Sentences Needed As Deterrent For Indecency”

Offences of indecency involving children, all too common at the moment, needed firm sentences by way of a deterrent, said Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday. A Nelson man, Earl James Paton, aged 35, a contractor, appealed unsuccessfully against a year’s imprisonment on two charges of indecency with a 12-year-old girl, and her 15-year-old brother. He claimed that the Nelson magistrate had refused to accept a medical report from Dr. F. O. Bennett of Christchurch, which gave a version of facts different from the police summary, and had declined to hear his own evidence of the incidents. His Honour said the effect of Dr. Bennett’s report was to say that Paton had been seduced by depraved children—but he found it quite incredible, said his Honour, that Paton, who had shown exceptional strength of character in curing himself from alcoholism, should have lacked the necessary strength to resist temptation offered by young people. Even had the magistrate accepted the report, he would therefore have been entitled to disregard it, his Honour said.

The picture was not one of a depraved man going out at night looking for children to corrupt and terrorise into indecency. said Mr A. Hearn, on Paton’s behalf. The significant facts were very different. Paton, a keen deerstalker, had been exercising his dog on the beach, and on his return was stonped by three children on the side of the road, who “thumbed” a ride into Nelson, said Mr Hearn. They then asked Paton to take them for a drive which he had done.

The children began smoking. and talking about sex, said Mr Hearn, which led to the offences. They occurred in broad daylight, in the car parked at the side of a main road. Then, before they left the scene, the girl had charged Paton lbs “for her services." Paton first demurred, but then gave her a £1 note, which the girl changed, later, her 15-year-old brother was seen “thumbing” rides in the

same place. Apart from a conviction for intoxicated driving in 1957. Paton had never been in trouble with the law, said Mr Hearn. Now, however, he felt he could never hold up his head in Nelson again, and would have to leave his home, friends, and associations to make a fresh start elsewhere in New Zealand.

Apart from this heavy penalty, a year’s imprisonment was excessive in all the circumstances, said Mr Hearn. “There is no evidence that this conduct was prevalent in Nelson, and that there was need for a heavy penalty,” he said. It would have been perfectly proper for the Magistrate to have received Dr. Bennett’s report, Mr Hearn said, and for the Magistrate to have heard Paton himself, instead of saying that he doubted Paton’s credibility. His Honour agreed that that was a pity. “It is always desirable that a court should hear an accused person, especially when he pleads guilty, so as to obtain his version of what occurred,” he said. But without calling on Mr N. R. Morgan (for the Crown), his Honour said that he found the facts put forward on Paton’s behalf quite incredible, compared with the evidence of his previous strength of character.

“The offences were of a particularly disagreeable kind,” said bis Honour. “They are offences all too common. They are offences which need firm sentences by way of a deterrent, and to protect young children, especially where they themselves have a tendency towards depravity.” “This sentence, I think, was appropriate, and the appeal is dismissed,” his Honour said. “Death-Bed Repentance”

“Death-bed repentance’’ was his Honour’s description of the action of a 20-year-old youth, who, after being convicted of disorderly behaviour, had subsequently severed undesirable associa-

tions and returned to live with his parents. “I’d have been much more impressed had he returned home immediately after getting into trouble,” said his Honour, in dismissing the appeal of Trevor Ross Dalton, a workman, against a sentence of six months’ periodic detention. Mr R. F. B. Perry, for Dalton, conceded that his offence had been both loutish and stupid, but said that he had, to some extent been affected by liquor. All’ the facts of Dalton’s good work record had not been before the magistrate. Dalton was both intelligent and amenable, and would respond to probation, submitted Mr Perry—which later would enable him to continue playing competition league football, a desirable recreation. His Honour said that Dalton could blame no-one but himself for the law now restricting him from playing football at the week-ends. “It will sheet it home to him that his conduct has been irresponsible,” said his Honour. Counsel Suggested Joseph Thompson, who appealed against his conviction and sentence on charges of burglary and assault, was told by his Honour that he should engage counsel to pursue his appeal. Thompson, having pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court, would have a difficult case to argue—“but counsel may be able to persuade me otherwise,” his Honour said. An adjournment of the appeal to March 11 was granted.