DUAL VOTING AT ELECTION

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 144, 14 March 1939, Page 11

DUAL VOTING AT ELECTION

Jail Sentence Reduced By Court Of Appeal MAN UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR The Court of Appeal yesterday reduced to one month’s imprisonment a ■sentence of six months’ imprisonment imposed by Mr. Justice Reed iu New Plymouth on February 20, 1939, on Percy Allen for the offence of dual voting.

Mr. J. D. Willis, appearing in supsport of prisoner’s application for ref Auction of sentence, submitted that the (’original sentence was excessive and that prisoner, now having served three L weeks, should be released. I He referred to an affidavit of Allen’s medical attendant, filed since sentence was imposed and said that that affidavit,- together with evidence given ■when the prisoner was charged, showed -that he had been affected by drink •when the offence was committed. It .'was clear that the offence was not a .deliberate attempt to deceive the returning officer, because prisoner was a •well known figure to everyone, including the police constable at the booth. Moreover, no attempt at personation and second voting occurred within a quarter of an hour of the first. Counsel also referred to a case which came before the Supreme Court in Napier dn the same day where, for a similar offence, a prisoner had been admitted probation. The Solicitor-General, Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C., appearing for the Grown, said it was just a case of a rather disreputable individual being detected in a rather serious offence. If the Court took the view that prisoner dfid not know what he was doing, it wjas competent for the Court to treat itl more benevolently, but the sentence should not be reduced to the extent suggested?* by Mr. Willis. ■The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). said that, speaking for himself, be regarded the offence as a serious ogie. One could quite see that in a closely contested election a few cases of dual voting could be a very serious thing for the candidates and for the country. Apart from that, Parliamentary elections must be kept clean.

‘However, it appeared that the case wjas one where the offender was under tike influence of liquor,. He was impressed by the affidavit of the medical practitioner, which was not before Mr. Justice Reed when prisoner was sentenced. He felt that if the affidavit h:id been before Mr. Justice Reed the sentence under consideration would not have been imposed. He thought that justice would be served if the sentence were reduced to one month. Mr. Justice Ostler and Mr. Justice Spilth agreed to the reduction, pointing out that they did so because they tqok the view that the offence was not a deliberate attempt to interfere with thse election. Mr. Justice Fair also concurred.