The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate, Fri 20 Feb 1925 ¹

ABSOLUTELY INADEQUATE. ———————— PUBLIC OUTCRY NECESSARY. ————————     In further support of an article, which appeared in our issue dated February 13, * under the heading of “Disciple of Mercy,” and dealing with the lenient attitude displayed by Judge Armstrong in sentencing guilty persons for committing outrageous and diabolical offences against little children, we publish the following:— “QUARTER SESSIONS, “Dubbo, Wednesday,     “Before Judge Armstrong, William John King was charged with attempted rape. There was a second count of indecent assault. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second count of indecent assault. Judge Armstrong, after describing the offence as most outrageous, sentenced King to eight months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. William Farrell, on a charge of having stolen £40 from Alexander Campbell, an old man, was found guilty, and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. Alfred Ah See, a Chinese, was convicted on two charges of unnatural offences against two boys, eight and nine years old. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, the month already spent in gaol to count as part of the sentence.”     How long is the Attorney-General going to stand this? The people want to know.     * See:—The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Fri 13 Feb 1925, p. 1

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dubbo Dispatch and Wellington Independent, Fri 20 Feb 1925 ²

DUBBO QUARTER SESSIONS
———•———
Tuesday, February 17, 1925.
———
(Before His Honor Judge Armstrong).
———

…

LIGHT SENTENCE FOR CHINAMAN
———

    Alfred Ah See, a middle aged Chinaman, answered not guilty to two charges of having committed an unnatural offence against two boys, [Frederick Thomas Churchland and Dudley Reberger], ages respectively eight and nine years, and alternatively with having committed an indecent assault on the same individuals.

    Mr Crawford prosecuted for the Crown, and the accused was undefended.

    The jury empanelled were:—William Henry Pascoe, Wilfred Ernest Miller, James Percy Wilson, Colin Campbell Brewester Douglas, Henry Michael Graham, Harry Crow, Charles Arthur Bennett, Herman Fischer, Richard Thomas Bolton, John Tibbits, Ernest Sydney Bootle, and James George Pexton.

    A statement, signed by accused, admitting the offence against one of the boys was submitted by Sergeant McLachlan, but in it Ah See placed the responsibility on the boys, who wanted to get lollies from him. Accused gave an address from the dock admitting his guilt and making a strong appeal to the sympathies of the jury.

    A verdict of guilty was returned.

    A sentence of three months in Dubbo Gaol, dating from January 20, was imposed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Dubbo Liberal and Macquarie Advocate, Fri 20 Feb 1925 ³

QUARTER SESSIONS.
———•———
FIVE CRIMINAL CASES

    His Honor Mr Justice Armstrong presided at the Quarter Sessions Court House on Tuesday morning. There were three defended and two undefended criminal cases. Mr A Tyers Wood acted as Deputy Sheriff. The defended cases were John Gordon Leslie McLean, charged with carnally knowing a girl over 10 years and under 16; William John King, for assault with intent to commit rape; and William Farrell, for stealing from the person.

    Mr TS Crawford acted as Crown Prosecutor. Mr JT Steel was attending his last court as Sheriff’s Officer after a term of service of 35 years. Mr GWH Davies, CPS, acted as Clerk of Sessions.
…

UNNATURAL OFFENCES.

    Alfred Ah See, a Chinaman, with a small shop in Fitzroy-street, North Dubbo, was charged with committing an abominable offence upon a boy 8 years old.

    Sergeant A[lbert] B[ertie] McLachlan gave evidence of arresting accused on information received.

    Practically the whole of the evidence in this case was unpublishable. The jury found a verdict of guilty without leaving the box.

    To another charge of the same description accused pleaded guilty.

    The Judge sentence Ah See to three months’ hard labor in Dubbo Gaol, sentence to date from the day of his arrest—January 20th.

    The accused was allowed by his Honor to talk a great deal, and he made pleas of extenuating circumstances, that he was nearly blind, that his mother was sick, that he had always lived a good life, and would never do it again. Occasionally he denied the offence but always owned up to it was cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor.
His Honor said that it made one furious to think that these two little boys, boys of our own people, should lend themselves to these practices.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 22 Feb 1925 ⁴

LOPSIDED LAW
OR
LOPSIDED JUSTICE?

ONCE again “Truth” finds itself compelled to call public attention to the passing of disproportionate sentences on convicted persons. Last Wednesday at the Dubbo Quarter Sessions, Judge Armstrong had three cases before him, namely William John King, attempted rape second count, indecent assault; Alfred Ah See (Chinaman), unnatural offences against two boys, eight and nine years old; and William Farrell, stealing £40.

    And Judge Armstrong handed down to the clerk the following extraordinarily disproportionate sentences:—

    King (found guilty by the jury in the second count) eight months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

    Ah See (convicted of unnatural offences) three months’ imprisonment with hard labor, the “month already spent in gaol to count as part of the sentence.”

    Farrell (for stealing) was sentenced to nine months’ hard labor—or one month more than King received for indecent assault and seven month longer than the sentence imposed on the yellow satyr who corrupted the bodies and defiled the souls of two little White Australian children?

    Is there any “fitness to the end” in these sentences?

    Is “property” more valuable and more sacred than the soul of a child?

    Is it a graver offence to steal a few pounds than to corrupt girls and boys?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 21 Mar 1925 ⁵

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
(Before the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Gordon and Mr Justice James.)

CROWN AS APPELLANT.

…

Rex v Ah See.

    The Attorney-General was again the appellant in the case of the King v Alfred Ah See, a half-caste Chinaman, who was convicted in one case and pleaded guilty in another at the Dubbo Quarter Sessions in February [1925] of committing or attempting to commit abominable offences on two young boys. His Honor Judge Armstrong imposed sentences of three months’ imprisonment in each case, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The accused was not represented on the appeal, and the Attorney-General was represented by Mr Weigall and Mr Treatt.

    The three additional cases were considered together for the purposes of the judgement, which was delivered by the Chief Justice. His Honor referred to the principles laid down in the previous judgement in Rex v King, which he said would be applied in these cases. In the matter of Rex v Bassett the jury had recommended the accused to mercy on the ground of his advanced age, 61 years, and the trial Judge in his report stated that in imposing the light sentence he had borne that recommendation in mind. The Chief Justice said that the Legislature evidently considered the offence a serious one, since it had provided that guilty persons should be liable to penal servitude for five years. The Court were of the opinion that the Judge was not entitled to surrender his own judgement to that of the jury. It was a matter for him, and not for the jury, to fix the sentence, and in determining it he must be guided by the character of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, giving such weight to the recommendation of the jury as it might be entitled to. Their Honors were of opinion that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and that it should be varied to one of imprisonment for nine months with hard labour.

    In the case of the Chinese, Ah See, the Attorney-General’s appeal was also sustained. The trial Judge’s explanation was that in other circumstances he would have imposed a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, but he was of the opinion that the prisoner was in too weak a physical condition to serve such a severe term. The Chief Justice said that here also the sentence was obviously inadequate considering the nature of the crime. Whether the prisoner could serve a sentence of one year or not the trial Judge did not know, nor did he; but in any event he did not think doubt as to the prisoner’s ability to serve an adequate sentence was a proper reason in the circumstances for imposing a lighter one. If his health suffered in confinement there were hospital facilities in the prison for his accommodation, and if it were seen that serious consequences were threatening his release could be obtained. He though the sentence should be altered to one year’s imprisonment with hard labour, and the Court ruled accordingly.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Alfred Ah See, Gaol photo sheet ⁶

---

Gaol Photo Sheet - Transcribed Details

No. 1932
Maitland

Date when Portrait was taken: 3-7-1925

Name: Alfred Ah See

Native place: Dubbo Year of birth: 1897 Arrived       Ship: in Colony }   Year: Trade or occupation previous to conviction  } Laborer Religion: C of E Education, degree of: Nil Height: 5' 3½" Weight     On committal: 118 in lbs     } On discharge: Colour of hair: Black Colour of eyes: Brown

Marks or special features: ½ caste Chineses [sic]. Near sighted

(No. of previous Portrait ... )  CONVICTIONS
Where and When				Offence.	Sentence
Dubbo Q.S Criminal Appeal	17 20	2 3	1925 1925	Attempt to commit Buggery. 2 charges Attorney General appealed against Sentence.	3 months H.L. on each charge. Concurrent Sentence increased to 12 months H.L. to date from date of conviction.

 

---

¹     The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers’ Advocate (Parramatta), Fri 20 Feb 1925, p. 4. Emphasis box in original text and added.

²     Dubbo Dispatch and Wellington Independent, Fri 20 Feb 1925, p. 8.

³     The Dubbo Liberal and Macquarie Advocate, Fri 20 Feb 1925, p. 2. Emphasis added.

⁴     Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 22 Feb 1925, p. 1. Emphasis added.

⁵     The Sydney Morning Herald, Sat 21 Mar 1925, p. 14. Emphasis added.

⁶     SRNSW: NRS2327, [3/5991], Maitland Gaol photographic description book, 1875-1930, No. 1932, p. 150, R5132.

---