FLOGGING DESERVED

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 16, 14 October 1942, Page 6

FLOGGING DESERVED

Judge’s Severe Criticism In Incest Case TEN-YEAR JAIL TERM “This is one of the most frightfully disgusting cases which has ever come before me,” said Mr. Justice Blair, in the Supreme Court, 'Wellington, yesterday, in imposing a cumulative sentence of 10 years’ hard labour on a man who had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to one charge of incest, and one of indecent assault., His honour said the case was eminently suitable for a flogging, but all he could do to a person of that type was to keep him away from his fellow men as long as possible. Prisoner had pleaded guilty to two charges, but there could have been very many more.' The man had two small daughters, one nearly 13, and the other about 1-1. The evidence showed that over a period of many mo'nths prisoner had virtually violated the elder daughter. He had pleaded guilty to incest, but the circumstances indicated that the offence amounted to rape.• It had occurred under circumstances when the little child could not resist. With the younger girl he did not go to the length of carnal knowledge, but it was only the fact that she was too young that prevented him attaining his full object.

The children, his Honour proceeded, were at a boarding institution, but the father used to call for them at weekends for the purpose of violating them. For incest, the law provided a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, and for indecent assault the law used to provide for seven years’ imprisonment and a flogging. In the course of a judicial career of nearly 15 years, he had had to order a flogging in one case, but he himself was mainly instrumental in getting that flogging removed from the sentence because certain circumstances came to his knowledge, and had he known of them at the time.he would not have ordered a flogging. “The only other case where I recently had occasion to order floggings,” his Honour continued, “was in connexion with serious assaults ou warders, but the Legislature, in its wisdom, after sentence had been imposed, saw fit to alter the law to provide that those men should not have the flogging they, in my opinion, so richly deserved, and which the law really required for the purpose of enforcing it. But the Legislature saw fit to alter that law, and I think that that was a lamentable mistake.” The present case, had it not been for the alteration of the law, was eminently a case where a flogging should be ordered, for yelping and protecting young children; but all the Court could do was to impose such' sentences as to ensure that a person of the prisoner’s type was simply kept away from his fellow men as long as possible. It was a very inadequate position. The prisoner was sentenced to. five years’.hard labour on each charge, the terms to be cumulative. Mr. AV. 11. Cunningham appeared for the Crown, and Mr. F. AV. Ongley for prisoner. Prisoner’s name has been withheld in the interests of the innocent parties in the case.