MENTAL DEFECTIVES

Southland Times, Issue 21096, 30 May 1930, Page 7

MENTAL DEFECTIVES

ACT DEBATED IN COURT.

(Per United Press Association.) Auckland, May 29. The much discussed Mental Defectives Amendment Act, 1928, was referred to in the Supreme Court when Stanley Alfred Vialoux, who had pleaded guilty to eight offences against young boys and girls, was brought before Mr Justice Herdman for sentence.

Mr Northcroft, for Vialoux, said that prisoner had been under observation in an Auckland mental hospital. The superintendant, Dr. Buchanan, reported that he came within class seven of the definition of a “mentally defective person” as described by the Act of 1928, namely, persons socially defective, that is, persons who suffer from mental deficiency associated with anti-social conduct and who, by reason of such deficiency, require supervision for their own protection, or in public interest. His Honour said he had no power to send prisoner to any institution. Mr Northcroft: He is not merely a person of anti-social habits, but also mentally deficient. His Honour: But can he be certified?

Mr Northcroft: It does seem proper. If some suitable machinery is being devised to deal with such cases then this man should not be treated as an ordinary criminal. His relatives wish him to be placed in an institution so that he may not repeat the offences. His Honour: I may say that in many such cases the accused’s mental equipment is not what it ought to be. Mr Northcroft: The Act intends that special provision shall be made for such cases.

His Honour: And that has not been done ? Mr Northcroft: That is so. The Act was intended to deal with persons not mentally defective. This man is both mentally and socially defective. It would be unfortunate if because the State has not gone further and provided special institutions this man should not have the benefit of treatment. Mr Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, said the difficulty was that the same arguments could be used on behalf of a number of offenders. The preferable course would be to impose a term of reformative detention. His Honour said that Dr. Buchanan’s report was that prisoner was mentally weak and sexually perverted, but not so mentally weak that two doctors could certify him as insane. The case was like many in the past. With the concurrence of the Probation Officer, he had decided to impose a sentence of not more than, five years’ reformative treatment. The Prisons Board, which would have jurisdiction over prisoner, included Dr. 1. G. Gray, the distinguished alienist, and possibly after considering his case, it would be able to arrange for his transfer to a mental hospital. An order for the suppression of prisoner’s name was refused.