Supreme Court Judge Reduces Sentence On Homosexual (Press, 7 September 1957)

On 7 September 1957, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Michael Freyne, a 41-year-old man who was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for indecently assaulting a male. This sentence was part of a broader conviction from the Dunedin Magistrate’s Court on 25 July 1957, where Freyne received a total of six concurrent sentences of 18 months for similar offences, involving the indecent assault of seven boys aged between 11 and 15 years. Mr J. G. Leggat represented Freyne and argued that societal attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted, suggesting that the criminal nature of such acts is increasingly recognised as stemming from more complex backgrounds rather than merely criminal propensity. During the court proceedings, Mr Leggat referenced the Wolfenden committee's report from the United Kingdom, which advocated for the decriminalisation of consensual homosexual acts between adults, indicating that such behaviour should not be treated as an offence unless it posed a risk of harm to others. He highlighted that public perception has evolved since the early 20th century, and suggested that the severity of Freyne’s three-year sentence was excessive, particularly given that he was a first-time offender. Leggat argued that a lighter sentence coupled with probation would provide an opportunity for rehabilitation, suggesting that the probation officer had indicated that Freyne's actions did not align with his fundamental heterosexual nature. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, Leggat maintained that the lengthy sentence was disproportionate for someone whose conduct, according to his defence, was out of character. He suggested that the circumstances warranted a reconsideration of the punishment to focus not only on retribution but also on the potential for reform. In response, Mr P. T. Mahon, representing the Crown, pointed out that all of Freyne’s offences followed a pattern of indecent assault against minors and thus argued that the original sentences adequately reflected the gravity of his actions. It was also noted that one of the charges had been affected by an error regarding the dates of the offences, which may have influenced the sentencing judgement given by the Magistrate. Mr Justice Adams concluded that the sentence imposed was indeed severe, acknowledging the procedural misstep regarding the timing of one offence. Ultimately, the court quashed the three-year sentence and imposed a different term, taking into account the specifics of the case, the context of the offences, and the evolving societal views on homosexuality.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand