TELEVISION THEFTS

Press, Issue 31095, 25 June 1966, Page 20

TELEVISION THEFTS

Comment On Prevalence

The theft of television sets in Christchurch was so prevalent that one suspected a considerable organisation was involved, and finding the crime profitable, said Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday. “The duty of this Court is to make it unprofitable,” said his Honour, when he sentenced Robert Thomas Webster, aged 20, a workman, to a year’s imprisonment for unlawful entry of a building with intent to steal a television set. The sentence was made cumulative on a two-year term recently imposed on Webster for the burglary of a supermarket. His Honour described Webster’s intent to steal a working girl’s £99 television set from her room as a particularly mean one. He noted that Webster had done no work of any account recently, nor taken advantage of the probation service—and while on bail for the present offence had resorted to burglary, at which he had been caught in the act. While there was no evidence that Webster was a member of any televisionstealing organisation, it appeared from the prevalence of the offence that it must be profitable. “The duty of this Court is to make it unprofitable,” his Honour told Webster. Webster’s counsel, Mr L. M. O’Reilly, made no submission on the facts of the case.