DRAMATIC APPEAL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5291, 25 June 1928, Page 4

DRAMATIC APPEAL.

YOUNG MAN’S REQUEST,

HIS SENTENCE REDUCED.

Speaking with a pronounced “Oxford” drawl with his hands clasping the lapels of a well-cut black coat, Richard Boreham Boreham. 22, made a dramatic speech from the dock when his case came up before the Court of Crimal Appeal. Boreham had been sentenced a,t the- Essex Quarter Sessions to 21 months’ hard labour for obtaining by false pretences, 10s from the rector of Great Eastop, an Essex village, by what was described as “a bold ajid ingenious lie.”

Addressing the Court slowly and very deliberately, Boreham observed “Kindly banish from your minds, if possible, all my past history. You will appreciate that I have suffered a.nd pajd the penalty for my past misdeeds. I also ask you to believe that I have tried to do better, but that I am the victim of circumstances of environment and bad luck. Describng tlhe sentence that had been passed, on him as proportionately and comparatively very severe, Boreham suggested that 21 months in a local prison was not conducive to reformation at the age of ?2 years. “I am willing to work,” he went on, “a,nd I have made honest endeavours .since my last release from gaol in February, 1926. I read with an undergraduate at Oxford, and your learned confrere, Lord Darling, ga.ve me a reference to a city solicitor, but I was not proficient and I got £1 a week.”

Here Boreham made a gesture of disgust, and added: “This is a c'£!,se in which I have allowed myself to drift because I have not hadi the opportunities other men get. I, therefore, ask you to reduce my sentence, which i®, as I. have already alleged, out of proportion to my crime.” The Lord Chief Justice stated that Boreham, who was described as a schoolmaster, called on August 14’ at a rectory at Great Easton. He told the rector that he was a member of the University of (Oxford and ant Oriel mani, although he had not taken his degree. He explained that he had come from Oxford to see a certain lady of high ra,nk, whom he had failed to find, and upon whom he had some sort of claim for assistance, because, he alleged, his people in more prosperous times had entertained’ her. He had not the money with which to pay his fare back to Oxford'. The rector believed his tale and gave him lOS, but. subsequent inquiries from the •authorities at Oriel College showed he had never been a student there. This was a bold ajid ingenious lie, and it was not his first offence by any means, in 1918 he was convicted of theft, and in that year, and .again in 1923, he wfts sent to a reformatory. In .1924 'he was convicted again for false pretences and sen,t to gaol for a month, while in 1925 .he went to prison again, this time for six months, for two offences of false pretences. Notwithstanding the lenient way he was treated, he would pot reform. It was dear that, with a little more courage and experiexnce he would become a dangerous criminal, an.d the 'Court could well imagine that the Chairma.ii of Sessions considered his a case for severe sentence. However, looking at the intrinsic importance of the case, the whole' circumstances, and, nbt least, Bbrehain’s youth, they were of opinion that the sentence mght well be reduced to one of 12 monthsj’ hard labour. That would be the hfcst time any sort of Leniency would be shown appellant Boreham bowed and expressed his thanks, to ’which the Lord Chief Justice rejoined : “The best way to thank us is to commit no more crimes.” “I will 1 not,” was the reply.