SUPPRESSION OF CRIME

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 111, 8 February 1928, Page 8

SUPPRESSION OF CRIME

NECESSITY FOR ADEQUATE

PUNISHMENT

EFFECT OF INJUDICIOUS CRITICISM

MR. JUSTICE REED’S VIEWS

Dominion Special Service.

Auckland, February 7.

Crime and punishment, the functions of Judge and jury, and the rights of newspapers in regard to public comment, were amongst the subjects dealt with by Mr. Justice Recd in his address to the grand jury at the opening oi the criminal sessions in the Supreme Court to-day.

The object to be aimed at, said His Honour, was the suppression of crime. At one time it was thought this could only be effected by inflicting severe penalties. The old Mosaic law of “an eve for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,”

however, was no longer the basis of punishment. The modern view was to endeavour to reform the offender, whilst not neglecting the important consideration <?f deterring others from committing criminal offences. Open to Criticism. “It is quite right and proper,” said His Honour, “that the sentences of a Judge should be subject to the criticism of newspapers.” His Honour went on to refer to a case in which he granted probation to a sharebroker, who had misappropriated £l5O entrusted to him to invest. As a rule breaches of trust were visited by a sentence of imprisonment, but in this case, representations were made by the probation officer which induced him, with some doubt, to grant probation. He imposed terms requiring complete restitution and payment of all costs to which the country had been put. At the same sessions some men were charged with breaking and entering. One of them’ was convicted of receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The stolen goods recovered from his possession were valued at abut £l5O. The police report showed there had been a series of cases of breaking and entering in the city, and that the prisoner was the head of a gang of thieves who were known to be responsible for these crimes.

"I sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment,” said His Honour. “A local paper commented on the discrepancy in the sentences, and actually used the argument that in each case the amount involved was the same, and that in each case there had been restitution. Criticism of that sort does no good, and even works harm amongst unthinking readers, as tending to throw doubt on the impartiality of the Bench. Negligent Drivers. “The most difficult class of case to know what to do with,” continued His Honour, “is that of a person found guilty of causing the death of another by the negligent driving of a motor-car. I have tried dozens of these cases, and it is a class of case in which juries are very averse to convicting. As a rule the alleged offender is a decent man of good character, and juries are loth to find a verdict which may result in imprisonment. At one time the charge was laid as manslaughter, and juries simply would not convict. The law was altered, and a charge could now be laid of negligently causing death. Although this was in reality manslaughter, the wording of the charge did not sound so formidable to a jury, and more convictions were obtained, but even now I am convinced that heavy sentences would only result in more acquittals. "Everyone desires to suppress the careless and negligent motor, ist,” said His Honour, “but I am convinced that the most effective method of doing so is, not by im. posing a heavy sentence, but first by increased vigilance in detecting, and the infliction of adequate pun* ishment for negligent driving in the streets, whether resulting in an accident or not; and secondly, by the certainty of conviction, when through negligence a fatal accident did happen. “As regards the first one, Magistrates are doing excellent work in teaching motorists to drive with care. As regards the second—the class that comes before the Supreme Court—if convictions could be secured in every case where fatal injury is clearly proved to be due to negligence, it would go a long way to teach carefulness in the handling of motor-cars. A certainty of conviction is a far greater deterrent than an occasional exemplary sentence. Spectacular Cases. “An added difficulty arose when the case was of a spectacular nature. The case was written up by the newspapers, and the public were inflamed by the possibly alleged callousness of the offender. When the case came to trial much that had been said and suggested was incapable of proof. This created a difficulty in the minds of members of the jury, who probably had read the reports, and expected to hear proof of inexcusable conduct on the part of the accused. The Crown failing to bring such proof—which never existed—the effect upon the minds of the jury was to excite, sympathy with the accused to the extent even of acquitting him for fear of what they consider might be a harsh sentence. Last session there was an instance of this. A young man was charged with manslaughter in circumstances which, if the story told in the newspapers was to be believed, was as gross and callous a case as could be conceived. Tlie effect of the sworn evidence upon the jury was that they absolutely declined to convict of manslaughter, and only after nearly five hours’ retirement agreed to a conviction for negligent driving, and only that on being satisfied that the offence would be met with

a fine. ‘‘Very Wrong.” "Although Judges fix the penalties,” said His Honour, "juries have a most effective wav of regulating the scale by refusing to convict when they consider sentences are excessive. No doubt this is verv wrong, but the 'act must be recognised that the Judge is not entirely a free agent in the matter of imposing penalties, and must defer to a considerable extent to the views of the juries who try the cases It appears to me to be the outstanding duty of a fudge to endeavour to secure that, whilst the innocent shall not be convicted. the cuiltv shall not escape If through a stiff-necked adherence to the view that convicted offenders must be severely punished iuries decline to convict, then a Judge is losing sight of what I say is his , outstanding duty to the public—to so act in his office, that at the least obstacles should not be placed in the way of bringing offenders to justice." Tn conclusion, His Honour said a

Judge could not join in a newspaper controversy as to his sentences. He made no apology, therefore, for endeavouring in a general way to place before the public some of the difficulties that a Judge was faced with in endeavouring to carry out his duty to the best of his ability. He had never heard it suggested that so far as New Zealand Judges were concerned they were actuated bv anything but a sincere desire to do their duty. Experience proved that fear of the imposition of what a jurv might regard as a heavy penalty had more than once resulted in a verdict of not guilty. Injudicious criticism might, therefore, often assist in defeating justice.