NOTWITHSTANDING every precaution taken to prevent it, the pillaging curse is still rife in Australia, although to a greater extent in some states than in others. This crime has now reached such a pitch that nothing but severe punishment will act as a deterrent.
In this respect, Mr Justice Lukin, of Brisbane, has set a worthy example for judges in other states to follow. In the case of the actual thief, the sentence was three years’ gaol, while the purchaser of the pillaged goods received twelve months.
This pillaging has become too great an offence to be treated lightly. In one year goods to the value of no less than £386,000 were stolen in Australia, and the position became so bad that a Royal Commission was created to go into the matter thoroughly. This was done, and certain recommendations were made, but whether they were adopted in their entirety is not known.
KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN
Although there are occasional convictions in Australia, the trouble does not always occur in this country, as it very often happens that it takes place at the port of shipment. Shipping companies receive the goods according to documents, but sometimes they are anywhere but in the packages. This naturally infers that the thefts are committed either in the factory or the warehouse, in which case it is the exporters’ duty to watch out and see that proper care and attention is paid to the packing and despatch.
Again, there have been cases where the crime has been committed on the high seas or on the ship while in port by members of the crew. This is a matter for the shipping companies. It would undoubtedly save them much time, trouble, and expense if a close watch was kept on the crew during the passage, and also while discharge is proceeding, while importers should also have somebody to look after their interests during this period.
Last, but by no means least, the Wharf Labourers’ Union should keep an eye open. It is not suggested for one moment that every man who has occasion to handle these goods is a potential thief, but one would naturally think, for the benefit of those who are always placed in a more or less awkward position, that such would be done.
THE DISHONEST MINORITY
As Judge Lukin pointed out, the honest majority of the wharf-workers suffered for the dishonest minority, and he wondered why some reign of terror was not exercised over the thieves. If the convicted men were put out of the union that body would remove every possible chance of a stigma over its name. And the same thing applies to other unions whose members handle these goods.
There is no sense in allowing an otherwise good name to be tarnished just for the sake of mere sentiment.
In the majority of cases, the accused person puts up a plea of being tempted. This is about the lamest excuse possible. The fact remains that, no matter how much broken the package may be, the contents belong to somebody else, and should be all the more reason why this so-called temptation should be overcome.
Judge Lukin has shown at least two individuals that the only way to stamp out the evil is to make the penalty on conviction so heavy that the ultimate conclusion will be that the game is not worth the risk, and it is to be hoped that similar penalties will be enacted in other states, should the occasion arise to inflict punishment.
WHARF PILLAGING
Wharf pillaging was strongly commented upon by his Honour Mr Justice Lukin when, at the Brisbane Supreme Court last week, he sentenced two men, one of whom had been found guilty of stealing goods in transit, and the other of receiving a large quantity of collars pilfered from the Brisbane wharves.
Addressing one of the accused, his Honour said he had been found guilty of stealing certain goods, for which he was liable to a sentence of seven years. The jury had recommended him to mercy, not on account of himself, but because of his wife and children. He was worried considerably over the sentence, notwithstanding the jury’s recommendation.
The crime was rife in the community. It had a demoralising influence on other people. In 1921 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the pilfering of ships’ cargoes. It was found that in one year in the Commonwealth £386,000 worth of goods was stolen. In Queensland alone in one year overseas cargo was pilfered to the extent of £29,000, and interstate cargo to the extent of £27,000. The records of the Wyreema, Wyandra and Levuka showed that an extraordinary amount of pilfering had been going on.
Of course, only a very small proportion of the Brisbane waterside workers shared in the plunder. Unfortunately, the honest majority of the wharf workers suffered for the dishonest minority. He really wondered why the honest majority of the workers did not exercise some reign of terror over the thieves. The thefts necessitated higher selling prices for the goods disposed of to the public. In the North of Queensland the thefts had assumed very serious proportions, and, extraordinarily, the authorities appeared to accept the explanation of any one with respect to a theft.
The trading community, in the interests of the community at large, desired to prevent the pillaging from the wharves.
His Honour considered that the trading community could best achieve that end by keeping the public informed, through the press, of the prevalence of the crime. His Honour said he also would respectfully draw the attention of the Government of Queensland to the suggestion of the Royal Commission, which had advocated an amendment of the laws of Queensland in regard to pillaging. “I hope that this sentence,” said his Honour, in sentencing the man, “will have the result of making those who are inclined to indulge in pillaging realise that it is too dangerous a game to indulge in.”
This article appeared in the July 2024 edition of DCN Magazine
