Supreme Court Youth Sent To Borstal On Wounding... (Press, 2 May 1970)

On 1 May 1970, Michael John Hamilton, a 17-year-old labourer, was sentenced to Borstal training by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court after being found guilty of wounding Stanley William Duggan, aged 41, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. This marked the second youth sentencing for a knife assault in just one week, prompting the judge to emphasise the need to curtail such violence. Hamilton had stabbed Duggan four times in a brutal attack that could have been fatal, according to the judge. The jury determined that Hamilton acted with intent, contrasting with an earlier case where another youth had inadvertently wounded someone. During the sentencing, Mr Justice Wilson acknowledged that while he did not believe there were any homosexual suggestions involved in the incident, he felt something had provoked Hamilton to lose control. He indicated that had he not sensed a mitigating circumstance, he would have imposed a longer prison sentence. Hamilton's lawyer, Mr M. G. L. Loughnan, argued that his client had faced a string of personal difficulties, had been drinking prior to the incident but had remained sober since, and demonstrated improved behaviour over the past year. He highlighted that the jury found no intent to rob Duggan, suggesting that Hamilton had acted out of instinct rather than rational thought, given the pressures he experienced, including an alleged homosexual proposition. The judge challenged the argument for leniency, pointing to Hamilton's previous breaches of probation and disqualification from driving. Ultimately, he deemed that a detention at Borstal was the appropriate response for such violent behaviour. In a separate case, Edward Laurence Barkle, aged 31, received a two-year prison sentence for multiple charges, including false pretences and theft, occurring over June in Christchurch, Auckland, and Wellington. His Honour noted that Barkle had previously been ordered for sentencing that would be reconsidered within a year, with indications that he had undergone treatment for alcoholism. However, upon re-evaluation, it was found that he had been discharged from treatment, which led to the imposition of a two-year maximum sentence due to a pattern of reoffending and a pre-existing criminal record. In summary, the court's emphasis was on addressing violent behaviour in youth, evidenced by the sentencing of Hamilton for a vicious assault, while also handling repeat offences by Barkle, highlighting a broader concern regarding crime management and rehabilitation in New Zealand's judicial system.

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