Below also see: Puddifoot’s Deportation from Australia files, 1923-1928

Evening News, Tue 29 May 1923 ¹

DOCTORS AGREE FREDERICK
CARRATT WAS ASPHYXIATED
————————
SMOTHERED BY SATYR
————
ARNCLIFFE MURDER
————
BOY’S STRUGGLE FOR LIFE
————
MURDERER’S DEATH-GRIP
————

    FIVE-YEAR-OLD Percival Frederick Carratt was smothered by a human satyr at Arncliffe last night.

    Death robed the monster of his victim; for, while carrying the lad 250 yards to a secluded spot, the hand he held pressed over the little fellow’s mouth blanked out the spark of life.

    On reaching the place where he intended to take the boy the murderer apparently discovered for the first time the fearful consequences of his act. In the final desperate struggle for breath the little fellow kicked his shoes off and blood oozed from his nose. The man placed the body on the ground by a patch of paddy’s lucerne. There are signs that he then knelt beside it, and afterwards raised the boy, and threw him face downwards in the undergrowth, where he was found a couple of hours later by his grandfather, Mr F Marsden.

    From there the monster would have no trouble to get away. BDOCKy jumping over the low paling fence which guards the railway he would have only a few minutes’ walk to either Banksia or Arncliffe railway stations.

    Who was he? The police have not the slightest clue. If they could get a line on the identity of the man who stood in the shadows of a back-yard fence opposite Macdonald’s butcher’s shop, where the boy was last seen alive, they would be on the tracks of the satyr.

    A Little Before 5.30 last evening Mrs Carratt sent the boy to Maloney’s greengrocery, in Rocky Point-road, to buy a bunch of carrots. From their home at 18 Terry-street to the store is about 150 yards. He ran the errand, and left the store at half -past five with the carrots in a knapsack thrown over his should, and threepence change in his pocket.

    He was seen walking smartly away from Maloney’s to as far as Macdonald’s butcher’s shop on the corner. But instead of turning into Terry-street towards his home he halted and peered in the opposite direction across Rocky Point-road. He was apparently looking for someone, and expected to see him on the edge of the reserve which runs from Rocky Point-road to the railway.

    What happened after that is not known, but it is surmised that the little chap either saw or was called by the person he was expecting, and crossed the road to him.

Who Was He?

    The man, whoever he was, must have spoken to the boy while he was on his way to the greengrocery, and made the appointment, for no one saw a stranger about, and there were very few persons on the corner when young Carratt left the shop.

    Everything goes to show that the boy must have crossed the road to the reserve alone. But having reached it the circumstances surrounding his death and the location of the body prove conclusively that he was picked up and carried by someone, and that someone had held a hand over his mouth.

    Abutting on to the reserve, and along the line which the boy would be carried are a number of back yards, with the residences close up to the fences.

    Had the boy been able to call out it is certain that in one of the houses at least someone would have heard him.

    That he would not go the distance voluntarily is borne out by the boy’s natural timid disposition, and the fact that he was not used to going anywhere alone in the dark.

    In a direct line from the edge of the reserve opposite the butcher’s shop, to where the dead boy was found, is about 200 yards, but it is not conceivable that the murderer took that route, for the reason that during the greater part of the journey he would be discernable from Rocky Point-road.

    Along the back fences to the railway fence, and thence along it to the only patch of growth on the reserve, the monster would be in darkness the whole of the way. It would be about 50 yards farther to go, but it would also be safer, and in that long carry with a hand pressed hard over the boy’s mouth and nose, would and did prove fatal.

Tell Tale Shoes

    The shoes, which were found fully laced about six feet from the body, bear out the medical evidence that the little fellow was smothered. They fitted him loosely, and in the final death struggle in the monster’s arms they came off, and it was apparent only then that the murderer dropped the body to the ground. The broken twigs on the tall bushes prove this, and besides there was this morning a clear impression of a man’s knee in the soft turf there. The smashed bushes and torn off twigs where the body was found show that it was hurled down upon it, and not placed there, as was at first believed.

    Two hours later the grandfather, searching for the boy, whose long absence had alarmed his mother, found
him lying face downwards, where he had been thrown. The bag was still over his shoulder, and the carrots it, and in his pocket was the three-pence change the greengrocer had given him.

    There were no marks of violence on the boy, except a slight bruise over the right eye, which could have been caused when thrown into the lucerne.

    The grandfather, thinking that he was only asleep, carried him back to Maloney’s store, where he made the fearful discovery that the little chap was dead.

    The little blood which had dripped from his nose lent color to the theory that he had been asphyxiated, and this was borne out by Drs Sheldon and Palmer, Government Medical Officers, who examined the body, and made the following report to the City Coroner to-day:—

Doctors’ Report.

    There were four bruises on the head, back and front, a small scratch on the left eyelid, above the nose. It is scabbed, not fresh. There is a discoloration of the skin on small areas on each side of the lower face, and there are a few small hemorrhages [sic] on the loose tissues of the neck. There are pronounced signs of asphyxia from smothering.

Posse Strengthened

    Immediately following the post-mortem Inspector Leary left Police Headquarters to take charge of the inquiries at Arncliffe.

    The police posse now comprises Inspectors Leary and Maze, Detectives Keogh and Barratt, and Sergeants Harrowsmith, McAtamney and Leonard.

Not Isolated Case

    Since the beginning of the year there have been numerous reports of young children having been assaulted, and the police have issued repeated warnings to parents to instruct their children to repel any advances by strange men in the streets.

    In almost every instance investigated by the police in recent months the assault has been so sudden that the effect on the child has been to erase all memory of the details of the stranger’s appearance.

    Invariably, children of very tender years have been selected by the monsters. It is a state of affairs that the police have found hard to combat, though they have scoured the districts for weeks afterwards.

    Only a week ago two little girls, aged six and eight years respectively, were walking home from school in one of the streets of Roseville, when they were accosted by a man on a motor cycle. One of the children went over to him when he asked them wuld [sic] they care to have a ride on the bicycle.

    He was just taking her up in his arms when someone was heard running along the intersecting street. The man did not wait. Straightening out the child’s clothes and setting her on the ground, he jumped on the cycle and rode away in a cloud of dust. He was not located.

    Two weeks ago a small boy wandered away from his home at Arncliffe and came into the city. He was standing outside a picture show in George-street in the night, attracted by the bright lights, when an elderly man asked him if he would like to see the show. The youngster consented, and they went inside.

    Later he was induced to accompany the man the man to a residential in Pitt-street where they spent the night. The next night he was found wandering along Pitt-street and picked up by the police night patrol.

Vague Descriptions

    The story he told the officers concerning the happenings of the night before was of such an astounding nature that special men were engaged for days afterwards attempting to trace this elderly man. The description supplied by the boy, however, was so vague that they met with no success.

    Some days ago another young boy was returning from a message in Darlinghurst when a man on a lorry in
the street asked him if he would care for a lift. The boy jumped at the offer. He was driven for some distance and eventually induced to leave the vehicle with the man.

    Later he returned home in a pitiful condition and reported to his mother that the man had assaulted him.

    On another occasion a child was on the way to Sunday School in the Illawarra district, when a man in a sulky enticed him to drive away. He was taken into some scrub and assaulted.

    Arrests have been made by the police in some instances; but in the majority of cases their efforts have
had a negative result.

Judges Should Help

    But even when the police bring their inquiries to a successful issue, make an arrest, and secure a conviction, the judiciary does not back up the department.

    Sentences for offence of this kind should be so severe as to bring them to an immediate stop.

    The maximum penalty provided by law in cases of assault on little girls is framed as a sufficient deterrent for that class of crime, and nothing but the maximum penalty should ever be inflicted.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Wed 30 May 1923 ²

TO-DAY’S STARTLING DEVELOPMENT
IN CHILD MURDER CASE
————————
ARNCLIFFE MURDER
————
AN ALLEGED CONFESSION
————
READ BY INSPECTOR SPYER
————
LOVETT ACCUSED OF THE CRIME
————
“THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE GIRL”
————

    In a statement which the police prosecutor called a confession, portions of which he read in court to-day, Leonard Henry Lovett [aka Leonard Henry Puddifoot] is alleged to have said that he enticed the five-year boy, Percy Carratt, on to the reserve and, because the boy cried, he pressed his hand over his mouth, holding his nose with his thumb and forefinger.

    On account of the boy’s long fair curls, he thought the little fellow was a girl, and when he discovered that the boy was dead, Lovett is alleged to have said, “I became frightened and went away.”

    ARRESTED LAST NIGHT on a charge of murdering the five-year-old boy, Percival Frederick Carratt, at Arncliffe, the previous evening, Leonard Henry Lovett, 17 years and 10 months old, appeared before Mr Le Brun Brown, SM, at the Central Police Court this morning.

    The charge read: That at Arncliffe, on May 28, he did feloniously and maliciously murder Percival Fred Carratt.

    The arresting officers given on the charge sheet were Inspector Leary, Sergeants Leonard, Harrowsmith, Detective Keogh, Matthews, Missingham, Barrett, Langworthy, and Aimes.

    A number of cases were heard by the magistrate before Lovett was called in.

“Practically A Confession.”

    Inspector Spyer said: “I ask for a remand for eight days for the purpose of fixing a date for the inquest. This young man is about 18 years of age; he came to this country in August last from London as an assisted immigrant.

    “The has been working in this district, Arncliffe, and since his arrest he has made a statement, which is practically a confession.

    “He says in it that at 5.30 on Monday on his way home from work he met the boy, whom he believed was a little girl, on account of his long fair hair.

    “He said he spoke to the boy and enticed him on to this vacant ground for immoral purposes. After some conversation the boy began to cry, and the accused says in his statement:—

    “I said to the boy, ‘Don’t cry,’ but the boy continued crying and sobbing bitterly.

    “Then I put my hand over his mouth while he was standing up, and I pressed his nose with my thumb and forefinger. Then I laid him down thinking he was asleep and took his shoes off.

    “But he did not speak, and then I became frightened and went away.”

    “These are the facts,” continued Inspector Spyer, “and they are set out in his confession, which is a fairly long one, and therefore I oppose bail.”

    The magistrate remanded Lovett as requested, and refused bail.

    Lovett was not represented by counsel.

Examined

    Lovett was taken to Police Headquarters this morning to be medically examined, and when he was brought back to appear before the magistrate the Court was crowded with men of all ages. There were only three women, and they mere girls, present, but in the corridors and the large front vestibule women were in the majority in the press of curious people. They did not get even a glimpse of the accused. The detective brought him into the court by the Central Lane entrance at the back, and even men who had taken up a front rail stand as soon as the court was opened were denied a view of him, for the screen was drawn round the dock.

    Anticipating a big crowd the police, instead of taking Lovett before No. 1, the Charge Court, took him into No. 2, where minor charges only are dealt with. But this move soon became known, for although No. 1 Court was packed from the time the doors were opened, so was No. 2.

In the Dock

    When Lovett’s name was called he stepped leisurely through the sliding door into the dock. He stood for a moment tugging his forelock with his left hand, and gazed vacantly round the court-room. His gaze took in the magistrate, the line of uniformed police, the Press table, and a group of plain-clothes officers standing at the side entrance. Then he craned his neck, as though to get a glimpse of those who, keener still, were straining over the dividing rail at the back to get a look at him so completely shielded from their view by the wooden screen.

    Half impetuously, yet with an apparent aimlessness of purpose, Lovett turned and walked to the end of the dock, and sat upon the seat.

    At the sharp command of a policeman he sprang upright, and gripped the low rail with both hands, and leaned forward over it; but when Inspector Speyer [sic] began to address the magistrate Lovett straightened up and folded his arms.

An Impression

    Though just two months off 18 years of age, except for his height—about 5ft 8in or 9ft [sic], he did not look his years. He seemed more like 15 or 16. A shock of straw-colored hair fell over his forehead, and it half hid his ears. His face, somewhat long, still had the softness of features which is the impress of boyhood. Fresh-complexioned, but not the rosy peaches and cream complexion of the English country youth, but a paleness of skin intensified by a hectic flush of the cheeks. His blue-grey eyes, which swept the court continuously while the prosecutor was speaking, were expressionless as regards giving a clue as to his mental alertness.

    As he stood there, without collar and tie, in an ill-fitting heavy dark grey sloth suit, the trousers baggy at the knees, and much too long even for his long legs, with his mouth half open, he gave the impression of one who didn’t know what was being done, and didn’t care what it was all about.

    As soon as the magistrate remanded him, in response to a signal from a policeman, he strolled slowly, to the sliding door and bent down as he passed through.

Inquiries

    The Inspector-General, Mr Mitchell, stated that arrangements were being made to have inquiries set on foot regarding Lovett’s life in England, and his family. It is understood that a relative of his was prominently before the public some months ago.

    Inspector Leary, who was in charge of the posse which made inquiries yesterday, would like anyone who crossed the vacant land on which the lad’s body was discovered between the hours of 5.15 pm and 5.45 pm on Monday to get in touch with police headquarters.

    The police would like to hear particularly from a man who walked across the track past a girl who was standing on a [At the end of the article text is missing].

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 30 May 1923 ³

CHILD’S DEATH.
———◦———
MURDER AT ARNCLIFFE.
———
A SHOCKING CRIME.
———
YOUNG MAN ARRESTED.
———

    The death of the boy Percival Fred Carratt, aged 5 years and 10 months, points conclusively to murder.

    The body was found on Monday night on a vacant allotment, off Rocky Point-road, Arncliffe.

    It has been found, as a result of the post mortem examination, that death occurred from asphyxia by smothering.

    A young man, living in the district, was arrested in connection with the case at about 5.30 pm yesterday. He will be brought before the Central Police Court this morning and charged with murder.

    The boy, who lived with his parents at Terry-street, Arncliffe, had golden curls, giving him an almost girlish appearance, and was a bright, healthy child. Mr Carratt is engaged in the business of a bootmaker, in Carlton.
    The police lost no time in taking up the case and in throwing a strong cordon round the whole of the district. Inspector Leary had charge of the case, and co-operating with him were Inspector Maze, Sergeants Leonard, of Marrickville, and Harrowsmith, Detectives Keogh, Barratt, Missingham and Matthews, and Constable Langworthy, of Kogarah.

Ill-Fated Message. 

    It was while on a message for his mother that the boy met his tragic death.

    He had been sent to buy some vegetables at a greengrocer’s shop a short distance down the road. He left home on this little errand at about 5 o’clock, and the fact that he was noted for his punctuality in such matters made his mother especially anxious when he did not return. A party set out in search of the boy, whose body was discovered in a vacant allotment off Rocky Point-road, Arncliffe, by his grandfather (Mr F Marsden), who lives next door to the boy’s parents. Foul play was suspected and no time was lost in getting into touch with the police, who immediately took the matter up.

    The post mortem examination, which was conducted by Drs AA Palmer and Stratford Sheldon, revealed small bruises on the back and front of the head, and a small scratch on the left upper eyelid. There were also abrasions on the nose, but those were scabbed and not fresh. The skin was discoloured in two small areas, one on each side of the lower jaw, and there were a few small hemorrhages in the loose tissues of the neck. There were pronounced signs of asphyxia, which the doctors announced were caused by smothering.

    A curious phase of the case was that the body was found in the opposite direction to that in which the boy’s home lay. That the boy must have struggled for his young life appears very probable. His boots, loosely-laced up, apparently came off, and they were found some feet away from the body, which was found lying face downwards.

    The bunch of carrots which the little chap had bought were still in a small bag, which he had slung over his shoulder. The threepence change was still in his pocket.

    There were few people in the vicinity of the shop at the time of the boy’s disappearance. Several schoolboys, who are in the habit of playing cricket on the allotment, were questioned yesterday, but they could shed no light on the matter.

    The little chap had only recently started to go to school, and was very enthusiastic about it. How he came to be in the allotment in which his body was discovered was inexplicable to those who knew him, for he was not the type of youngster, it is said, who plays in the street, and made it a rule, when sent a message, of going straight to the shop and retuning straight home. He was regarded as a particularly bright little chap.

An Arrest Effected.

    At about 5.30 pm, Leonard Henry Lovett, aged about 18 years, and residing, it is stated, with his parents at Arncliffe, was arrested near Harding-street, in that centre. He was walking along the street when accosted by the police. He is a single man, and according to the police, came out from England in August last.

    He was taken to the Central Police Station, and charged with murder. He will appear at the Central Police Court this morning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 31 May 1923 ⁴

ARNCLIFFE CRIME.
———◦———
YOUNG MAN CHARGED.
——
ALLEGED CONFESSION.
——

    Leonard Henry Lovett, 17 years and 10 months old, who was arrested on Tuesday night in connection with the murder of Percival Fred Carratt, appeared before Mr Le Brun Brown, SM, at the Central Police Court yesterday morning. He was charged with having, at Arncliffe, on May 28, feloniously and maliciously murdered Percival Fred Carratt.

    Inspector Spyer (Police Prosecutor) immediately asked for a remand for eight days. He asked this in order that the date for the Coroner’s inquest might be fixed.

    Lovett, said the Inspector, came to this country in August last from London, as an assisted immigrant. Since his arrival he had been working in the Arncliffe district. After his arrest he had made a statement which was practically a confession.

    In this statement, the Inspector alleged, Lovett stated that when he was on his way home from work he met the boy, whom he believed to be a little girl, on account of his long, fair hair. He said he spoke to the boy and enticed him on to the vacant ground. After some conversation the boy began to cry. Lovett told the boy not to cry, but the latter continued to cry and sob bitterly. The accused then put his hand over the boy’s mouth while he was standing up, and pressed the boy’s nose with his thumb and forefinger. He then laid him down thinking he was asleep, and took his boots off. As the boy did not speak after some time had elapsed Lovett became frightened and went away.

    “These are the facts,” said Inspector Spyer, “and are set out in his confession, which is a fairly long one. I oppose bail.”

    The magistrate granted the remand, bail being refused.

————
THE ACCUSED’S PAST.
———

    The Inspector-General of Police (Mr James Mitchell) stated yesterday that inquiries would be made immediately in England in connection with the life led there by the accused Lovett and his family.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 3 Jun 1923 ⁵

MONSTROUS MURDER OF
INNOCENT CHILD Page 7 [sic–9]
…
MONSTROUS MURDER OF INNOCENT CHILD
————————————
AN ARNCLIFFE HORROR
———◦———
FIVE-YEAR’S-OLD TODDLER’S FATEFUL ERRAND
————
LURED TO LONELY SPOT, BRUTALLY
MAULED AND SLAIN
————
Immigrant Boy Charged with the Crime
————
ALLEGED SHOCKING STATEMENT BY THE ACCUSED
————
“I Thought it was a Little Girl”
————
A DEED THAT HAS SET SYDNEY SHUDDERING

    For months Sydney has been enjoying an unaccustomed immunity from sensations, particularly crimes of violence.

    For months the terrible, startling stories of cruel crimes in other cities, crimes in which the worst passions of men’s make-up were shown in all their gruesome nakedness, sent shudders through the readers in this State.

    And now, suddenly, the people have been plunged into horror over the ghastly killing of a mere toddler—little Percy Carrat, five years of age, of Arncliffe.

    At five o’clock last Monday afternoon, he was alive and well, happy in the joys that only childhood knows—within an hour he was dead, his life crushed out of his little body, a little, crumpled, broken heap lying in some bushes in a paddock off Rocky Point-road, within a stone’s throw of the Arncliffe Railway Station, and within a few yards of a track used by many people in the course of a day.

    RUNNING at right angles to Rocky Point Road, and within a couple of minutes walk in a southerly direction from the scene of the tragedy, is Terry-street. And in a red-brick cottage—No 18—of the bungalow style, the luckless little fellow lived with his father and mother, Edward and Daisy Carrat.

    There he had been born and reared, and not far away was he found dead, when only five short years of his life had run.

    Of a quiet, shy disposition he was a likeable little chap, and a general favorite with all who knew him.

    Well brought up, and trained, he was the little messenger of that household, and used to go all sorts of trivial errands for his mother.

    Late on Monday afternoon, Mrs Carrat found that she was short of some vegetables, and in keeping with her usual custom, dispatched the little boy about 5 o’clock to the greengrocer’s shop, run by Mr Maloney, some little distance around the corner in Rocky Point Road, in the direction of the railway station.

    And just before he went, he asked if he could take his little brother, Jackie, with him.

    “No. You run along now”, said the mother. “He is too slow. You go by yourself.”

    He set out, with a bag strapped to his arm. And little did the mother think, then, when she saw him go out the door that that would be the last time she would see him alive.

    He arrived at Maloney’s all right, was given the vegetables, which were put in the bag, received threepence change, and left.

    At that time, the Winter’s afternoon was drawing to an end, and it was almost dark. He went out into the quickly coming darkness, and as people were accustomed to seeing him in the shop, very little notice was taken of his movements.

    Right opposite is the vacant piece of land, used in the daytime by the children from the public school, just up on the hill, but in the night neglected and shunned by most, and used only by pedestrians as a short cut to the railway station some 50 yards away.

    Whether the little chap went on to the paddock, or turned on his journey home is not known, but somewhere near the half hour, a girl, Miss Mary Stone, the daughter of a well-known resident of the district, was walking across the land towards the station when she passed a man with a limp walking side by side with a youngster, going in the same direction as she.

    At the time, she took no particular notice of them, but as she gained the summit of a steep rise near the railway bridge she turned around. They had disappeared. She went on her way, attaching no importance to the matter just then.

    Some time later, another resident passed the same way, but heard nothing, and saw nothing to make him suspicious. He, too, went his way, little thinking that within a few yards of where he had walked was the dead body of the little fellow he had known so well in life.

    In the meantime, as her boy had been longer than was necessary, the mother began to wonder what had become of
him, and as 6 o’clock drew near became alarmed.

    Next door lives her father, Frederick Marsden, and to him she went and told of her anxiety. Straight away a search party was organised, and began to look for the missing child.

    Their preliminary efforts were fruitless. He could be found nowhere, despite the fact that every hole and corner was frantically searched.

    Seven o’clock came and went, and still no sign of him. The situation began to grow desperate. The searchers redoubled their efforts, and with lanterns and improved lights, widened their scope.

    At half-past seven, he was still undiscovered, although the party probably walked quite close to where he was a number of times after they had started on their quest.

    The paddock is absolutely bare of anything except short-cut grass, but over in the corner, near the fence abutting the railway cutting, at the foot of the sharp rise, up which Miss Stone and the man had gone earlier in the evening, is a clump of bushes and high grass, non of it more than three feet in height.

    And it was there, at ten minutes to eight, that Marsden found his grandson lying face downward, fully clothed, except for his shoes, which were lying a few feet away. The carrots bought by him at Maloney’s were still strapped in the bag to the arm of the still little form.

    The grandfather picked the body up, and carried it to Maloney’s shop, directly opposite.

    Dr Meeke was summoned, and at eight o’clock, arrived. He examined the body, and found the trunk warm, but the extremities cold. There was blood in the boy’s mouth, and some slight scratches, that had been recently inflicted, on his right upper eyelid. On either side of his lower jaws, there were some marks.

    He had been dead for some time, but how he had come by this end was not then known. In fact, there was only a slight suspicions [sic] that he had been foully done away with.

    He was taken to the morgue, and there on Tuesday morning all doubts of how he had come to his death were dispelled by Dr Palmer, who held a post mortem. He found that the skin was discoloured in two small areas, one on each side of the lower jaw; whilst there had been a few small hemorrhages in the loose tissues of the neck.

    He found that death was due to asphyxia from smothering.

    It was murder, then! At the pronouncement, police headquarters was roused. Detectives and a police photographer were sent post haste to the scene of the murder, and acting in conjunction with officers from the outside police divisions, investigations were at once begun among the people likely to know anything about the matter.

    But it was the girl who had walked across that paddock the night before whom they wanted. And they had no difficulty in finding her. She remembered well what she had seen, and it was on what she told them that they took the action that they did.

    A man with a limp was wanted! Such a person had been seen often passing along Rocky Point-road apparently to and from his place of work, and the detectives knew that in all probability, he would pass the same way again.

    All day long they waited, and at five-thirty their vigil was rewarded. The man answering the description given by the girl was seen walking along a street some distance away. A plainclothes officer pounced on him, and it was only the work of a couple of minutes to have him safely ensconced in a motor car.

    In fact, he took the matter quietly enough, and they had no difficulty in carrying out the arrest.

    His name was Leonard Henry Lovett, a young Englishman, and at the Central Police Station, whence he was conveyed, he was charged with murder.

    Lovett, like his father and mother who live on the other side of the railway line, is English, having come out to this country last August as an assisted immigrant.

    It is said that he had been employed at a fibro plaster works between Rockdale and Banksia, and in all probability he was on his way home from there when arrested.

————
Lovett in the Dock
————

    The crowd of loungers that everlastingly pack themselves into the pen “reserved for the public” at the Central Police Court (there’s a red-headed man who hasn’t missed a day behind the barrier for over 15 years) had to put a bridle on their patience on Wednesday.

    Long before 10 am, the starting hour of the Courts, there was a large assembly of people, mostly idlers, awaiting the doors to be opened, and the hardest work that some of them ever did in their lives was to battle for a good place from where they could see Leonard Henry Lovett when he was called to face Mr Le Brun Brown, SM, in No. 2 Division.

    It was expected that Lovett would be placed in the dock as soon as the court was opened and formally remanded, but it was not till nearly an hour later that the gate of the dock was swung back to let him in.

Unseeing Eyes.

    As he stood to answer the charge his face was expressionless. There was a blankness as if he did not see.

    The charge was read:—

    Leonard Henry Lovett, you are charged that on May 28 you did feloniously and maliciously murder Percival Fred Carrat at Arncliffe.

    Thereupon Inspector Spyer applied for a remand for eight days. Accused, he said, was 17½ years of age. He was an assisted immigrant, and had arrived in Sydney from London in August last. Since his arrest he had made a statement, “which was practically a confession”. This was to the following effect:—

    At 5.30 on his way from work, he met a boy whom he thought to be a little girl. He enticed the boy to a piece of vacant ground for an immoral purpose. After some conversation the child began to cry and sob bitterly.

    “Then,” went on accused’s statement, according to Inspector Spyer, “I put my hand over his mouth and pressed his nose with my thumb and forefinger. Thinking he was asleep, I laid him down. When he did not speak I took his shoes off and left him there. I was frightened and went away”.

    Accused, said the Inspector, had made a somewhat lengthy confession.

Hearing Adjourned.

    The Magistrate granted a remand till June 7.

————
PLENTY OF PUBLICITY AND ETERNAL
VIGILANCE WANTED

    In view of the peculiar and sordid phases that are alleged to be connected with this crime, it becomes more and more certain that extreme vigilance on the part of parents is needed to protect their children, and it is incumbent upon them not to allow any youngsters of tender age out in the streets, unguarded and easy marks for any degenerate who may chance to come along.

    Interference with children by sexual perverts is becoming alarmingly prevalent, and so frequent are the cases that one wonders why these things are allowed to go unproclaimed by the authorities.

    Every suburb seems to be a happy hunting ground for people with low and vile habits, and not a day passes without some complaint being made by the angry parent of an attempted waylaying and sometimes mishandling of a child by some filthy scoundrel, who seems to have cultivated a cunning as well as a degenerate mind.

    Occasionally a couple of lines are allowed to creep into the columns of the Press—but that is all. Full particulars are not given when they are most needed, an air of secrecy generally pervading the force as to the circumstances, even though full publicity is absolutely necessary to put down the menace.

    As a matter of fact, we seem to be slowly drifting back to the days when newspapers were censored, and news thrown to them like meat to a dog, when public scandals were hushed up, and the Press gagged by the reticence that, to say the least of it, is against the best interests of the decent, law-abiding sections of the community. 

    There has been too much, far too much, of this hush! hush! business to be healthy. When the police hear of cases—and they hear of them every day—full particulars should be broadcasted, and the only way to broadcast them is by medium of the Press.

    “Truth’s” argument against the hole-and-corner methods of suppression is that with the public apprised of the existence of these fiends everyone will be on the alert, and become detectives— potential detectives—engendered with an air of suspicion; so that when he or she sees a child of tender years being accosted by a man, preventative action will be taken.

    It might be the reader, it might be the man next door, or it might be his brother, sister or his wife; but whoever it is, will continually be on the look-out for persons acting suspiciously towards little children, both male and female. He might see the tiny tot of tender years from down the road being held in conversation by some strange man. Having read in the paper that things in his district are not as they should be in matters like this, he at once becomes suspicious. He well knows that child has no business with a strange man, and knowing that, at once makes inquiries. The man might be merely asking the directions to some street. If he is, then all right. But if he is not, and his motives are sinister the interference would be justified and timely.

    According to the office, with whom a “Truth” representative had a conversation the other day, in his division alone several men are shortly to come before the Court for offences of this nature. But, nobody will ever hear the outcome; for they will be heard behind closed doors, beyond which members of the Press and the general public will not be admitted.

    An example of what can be done if the general public know of it, would not be out of place here. Some time ago, a malicious campaign was set going by an individual with a warped brain in Victoria. Day after day, horses were found maimed, ham-strung, by their owners in open paddocks, and other places. Strange to say, very little was allowed to be published about the depredations of the maniac, and what little did appear was of such a paltry nature that the seriousness of the matter did not meet the public mind as it should have.

    However, the attack on the animals reached such a degree that something had to be done. Full particulars were published, and within a day or two, so much were the people roused, the culprit was caught, and duly suffered for his crime.

    The searchlight of publicity proved efficacious there. It will here if the police open their mouths and tell the people what is going on behind the scenes. They are there as protectors of the public—let them tell the people how they are protecting them. The public should know for their own safety and the safety for the children of this community. Now that the past reticence has proved to be ineffectual it might be demanded of the police that even at the risk of creating a scare they should unbosom themselves when reports of any menace to the children are made.

———————
Mites Must Be Protected
————

    Past experience teaches that a crime of this nature is very often the forerunner of a series of revolting assaults on children of tender years.

    From time to time during the past few years the community has been shocked when horrible details of hideous interference with tine mites have been brought to light.

    The disclosure of the facts in one case has scarcely passed through the printing press when a similar horror has been reported.

    An illustration is furnished by the recent crimes in Melbourne. During the past few days several little children of both sexes have suffered from the vile attentions and violent attacks of dastardly and degenerate prowlers, who, but for timely interference, would doubtless have pursued their lustful designs to the extent of murder.

    Unfortunately the apprehension of these cunning coyotes, or human pariahs, has not been effected, because, like their prototypes, they slink in the shadows and vanish at the first intimation of danger.

    Every State in the Commonwealth, and New Zealand as well, has experienced an epidemic of this class of evil.

    Invariably it comes in endemic-like waves, and for that reason it behoves parents as well as the police and citizens generally to unite in an effort to protect the young and innocent, and the community from any possible recrudescence of these terribly assaults that shock and disgust, and worse still, wreck the lives and morals of mere babes whose very innocence should command the protection of even these human monsters.

    This fearful crime, which has brought misery and desolation to one heartbroken mother, and devastation to a happy family, should stamp on the minds of all, the dire necessity for increasing and unceasing vigilance.

    More than that, the police should give immediate publicity to all such cases, in order to keep the community constantly on the alert. This injunction cannot be too strongly urged.

———————
DATE FIXED
———
Coronial Inquiry on
June 14

    The City Coroner, Mr J[ohn] Jamieson, has fixed the date of the inquiry on the circumstances of the death of Percival Frederick Carrat for June 14.

    Then the whole of the matter will be inquired into, and the story of his movements during his fateful errand up to the time he left Maloney’s shop, never to be seen again by those who knew him alive, will be investigated.

    To date there have been no fresh discoveries by the police in the matter, and it seems now that they are satisfied that they have cleared the matter up. What they have found, and what their various witnesses know of the matter will all be placed before the Coroner in a fortnight’s time.

———————
Scared Parents
———

    The occurrence has caused more than a stir in the Arncliffe district. In fact, the mothers of little toddlers have become afraid, and each afternoon last week, several women waited outside the schools to escort their children home.

    With the prevalence of instances of interference with children of tender age, and even with those well above the age of reason, it is up to the authorities to safeguard school children.

    The mothers of Arncliffe are wise in what they are doing, but the worry should not be theirs. The State must protect the children.

———————
TWO HOMES THAT MOURN
————
The Sadness and Sorrow of the Bereaved

    There is a sadness—a distressing sadness that has supplanted the sunshine and the happiness with a terrible gloom, poignant with sorrow and suffering—over the Carrat and Marsden households.

    When the little form was borne lifeless from that scene of death, there was experienced a shock that only the kind hand of Time can erase. For he was the light of their lives, the bloom of a mother’s heart, now wracked with the terrible knowledge that the dear little smiling face is no more.

    One can only imagine the grief, but only the one in the position of that mother can know what it must be.

    At five o’clock she was smiling at the winsome little ways of the luckless youngster. Within an hour and a half, she was standing over that dear, dead body, looking into that still face—beautiful in death—and weeping over those deep blue eyes that the cold hand of Death had closed.

Sympathy and Condolence

    The scene was awful! The wrench too horrible to think of! The experience that any mother would willingly give half a lifetime to avoid!

    Even then they knew not the ghastly cause. The conjectures were many; but it was not till medical science had determined the cause of death that the full extent of the calamity was realised.

    Nor was the shock felt only there. Quickly the sad news was broadcasted, and spontaneously came letters of sympathy and condolence from every corner of the State into the sorrow-stricken household, even from far Moree and the Victorian border and way out West.

    The people sympathised, and shared the sorrow of, that mother whose little child was so cruelly torn away from her.

    And so the relatives sit and think in saddening desolation, pondering over the few short years that their little boy was with them. The first shock has passed, but they cannot yet realise that he has gone—even down the years they will pause and ponder, and picture what might have been if they had only known.

    “He was the best little boy you ever saw”.

    That is the opinion of his grandmother, Mrs Marsden, and she told a “Truth” representative on Friday last, during the course of a conversation, that he could not be induced away.

    “Money wouldn’t do it”, she said. “Why, if you gave him a copper, he would put it in his money-box”.

“Oh. If We Had Only Known!”

    She paused and sighed, and a far-away look came into heh [sic] eyes.

    She shook her head sadly. “No, money would never tempt him away”, she said softly.

    The misfortune of the circumstances, and the cruel luck that dogged his footsteps on that fatal errand, even now may be readily seen when the perspective has become clearer, and one can reconstruct his movements nearly a week after his end.

    It seems as though he was not to be protected in his last few minutes of life.

    “A little girl, who lives up the street, spoke to him”, Mrs Marsden explained. He went to one shop, she to another. She never saw him again, for when she came out he had disappeared.

    “Oh, if we had only known”, and the tears welled up to her eyes.

    “He could not possibly be taken for a little girl”, she went on. “He was dressed in a navy blue ranger suit and had a little school-bag on his arm. He did not look like a little girl”.

    He had always been warned not to speak to anyone, she said, and she thought it impossible that he would go away on his own accord.

    She paused again as if thinking, and then told of the beauty of his little face.

    “He was a handsome child, not merely good looking, but handsome”, was her description. “He had long dark eyelashes and deep blue eyes”.

    The only picture that they now have of him is imprinted in their memories, but even the years will dim that, and because of that they are lamenting that they did not have a photograph.

    “We are sorry now that we did not have a photograph taken of him”, said the grandfather. “We had some snapshots but they weren’t good ones, and now they have all gone.”

    The mother had been sitting, silent, in a chair near the window, but when his trustworthiness on any errand was mentioned, she broke her silence and remarked that he was never tardy.

    “Whenever he went on a message, he hurried”, she said. “That was why we sent him. He was never known to loiter”.

    Once again she became silent, with her features expressionless, only lighting up when her dead boy’s name was mentioned, and then the tears filled her eyes.

    How terrible it was when it was found that he was gone, missing, was shown by the grandmother.

    “My daughter came in and said, ‘Don’t you think little Percy has been gone a long time’ ”, said Mrs Marsden. “We sent a little girl to find him, but she came back and said,

    “Percy is not there!”

    “I said to my husband, “Run along, Percy is not in the street”.

    “He went away, and came back, and said he could not find him.

    “Then they all went out and looked around the place. Some times they went near the spot where the body was found, but never thought of that place.

    “They searched everywhere but there, until finally my husband chanced to go near the spot, not knowing. Another step, and he would have walked on him. Lying in the bushes he found him.

    “ ‘Bless your little heart’, he said, and picked him up, and cuddled him to him. He did not know immediately that the child was dead”.

    She paused and shook her head, whilst the tears again came to her eyes, probably when she thought of her husband’s dread discovery.

    “His little shoes were off”, she continued after a little while, “and were placed neatly alongside each other.

    “That was at half-past seven in the evening. They were going to bring him home, but someone said not to bring him here, so at about ten to eight they took him to Maloney’s, where the doctor saw him.

    “We thought that he had been run over, and had been thrown there by the driver, who was perhaps a married man, who had taken the body and hidden to save his own neck.

    “Indeed, we would rather that it was that, but when we heard how terrible it was, we could not realise it but, thank God, there was nothing more”.

    Then began a talk on the characteristics of the boy, and the adaptitude he had for various little things. Oh, they were going to make a great man of him—if he had only lived!

    “Even that very day”, the mother said, and she recollected the many little doings that only a mother notices; “why, even that very day, he brought home an old teapot spout, and I said I thought he was going to be an inventor, but then—”

    She sighed, and relapsed into silence.

    And so it is with those two households that mourn. It is only of what he was in the Past that they know him—the Grim Reaper has taken his Future, and the cold grave had claimed him for its own.

    Vale, little Percy Carrat!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Thu 7 Jun 1923 ⁶

ARNCLIFFE MURDER
———————
LOVETT IN COURT
————
ANOTHER REMAND
————
Inquest on Thursday
————

    For two minutes Leonard Henry Lovett occupied the dock at the Central Police Court this morning.

    The charge against this 18 year old youth of murdering Perceval Fred Carratt, at Arncliffe on May 28 was read and at the request of Sergeant Dennis, Mr Gales, [sic] SM, remanded him till next Thursday when the City Coroner will commence the inquest.

    Lovett did not speak but stood with his arms folded while the magistrate recorded his remand.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 8 Jun 1923 ⁷

ARNCLIFFE TRAGEDY.
———◦———

    At the Central Police Court yesterday before Mr Gale, SM, Leonard Henry Lovett, aged 18 years, who stands charged with the murder of Percival Fred Carratt, at Arncliffe, on May 28, was remanded until next Thursday.

    The Police Prosecutor (Sergeant Dennis) asked for this further remand pending the Coroner’s inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Thu 14 Jun 1923 ⁸

FOR TRIAL ON MURDER CHARGE
————————
ARNCLIFFE HORROR
————
DEATH OF PERCY CARRATT
————
THE CORONER’S VERDICT
————
LOVETT’S STATEMENTS PRODUCED
————

    When five years old Percival Fred Carratt went on an errand for his mother, at dusk, on the evening of May 28 he set off at a run, swinging a small haversack on his arm. A couple of hours later his grandfather found him dead in a clump of stunted scrub at the back of a vacant reserve, in the opposite direction to that which he should have gone.

    What happened in those tragic and fateful hours was told to the City Coroner, Mr Jamieson, to-day, at the inquest concerning the death of the little, curly, fair-haired boy, who lived at 18 Terry-street, Arncliffe.

    Leonard Henry Lovett, the 18 year-old English immigrant, who was charged with the murder, was present in custody. He arrived late and sat in the court beside Detective Keogh. He was dressed in the same ill-fitting grey suit which he wore when arrested the day following the murder.

    At the conclusion of the evidence at the command of the Coroner Lovett stood up, and in a clear voice said he did not wish to give evidence. The Coroner then returned a verdict of wilful murder against Lovett, whom he committed for trial.

    THERE WAS A LARGE ATTENDANCE of the public, mostly men.

    Mr Kidston represented the police, and Mr ER Abigail appeared to watch the interests of Lovett.

    Edward Carratt, a bootmaker, of 18 Terry-street, father of the little boy, gave evidence of identification. When he got home from work on the night of May 28, he learned that little Percival was missing. He joined in the search for him, and, failing to find him, witness went to Rockdale, and informed the police. On returning he learned that his son had been found dead.

    How the body was found was told by Fred Marsden, grandfather of the little chap. Witness lived next door to the Carratts. He heard Mrs Carratt tell the boy to go to Moloney’s [sic] greengrocery shop round the corner, in Rocky Point-road, for a bunch of carrots. When he did not return witness went to Moloney’s and learned that the little fellow had left with the carrots half an hour before.

    “I then searched all round the locality,” said witness, “but could not find little Perc. Then my wife suggested that I should go over to the reserve across Rocky Point-road and look there.

    “It is a recreation reserve, and I scoured the open spaces of it, but without finding him. Then I went to the railway fence, and near it in a clump of bushes I found him lying on his face, turned a little to the left side.

    “The little bag he took for the vegetables was still on his shoulder, and the carrots were in it. He was fully dressed, except for his shoes. I picked him up and ran with him to Moloney’s shop. I didn’t look to see if he was dead or alive. He was so quiet, and his body was warm.”

    Dr Palmer, Government Medical Officer, said he conducted a post mortem examination of the body. There were small bruises on the back and front of the head, a small scratch on the left eye-lid, and abrasions on the nose. The skin was discolored in two small areas on the neck, one each side of the lower jaw. There were pronounced signs of asphyxia, which, in his opinion, was the cause of death.

    Mr Kidston: If a hand had been held over the boy’s mouth and nose, would that cause the asphyxia?—Yes.

    The Coroner: Regarding the bruises on the throat, could they have been caused by an attempt to choke him, which was abandoned?—Yes, that could do it.

Lovett’s Stiff Knee

    Mr Kidston: Did you examine Lovett, who is now before the court?—Yes. I examined his right knee as suggested. I found it was swelled. It was covered with wool and a lone bandage. What caused the swelling I could not say, but Lovett told me he had twisted it at work a fortnight before and was under medical attention for it. He was walking with a stiff knee, which gave the impression of a limp.

    Dr Sheldon gave corroborative evidence.

    Joseph Henry Murray, a fettler, who lives at 12 Terry-street, Arncliffe, said that when he was walking home on the night of May 28 he passed from Forest-road to Wardell-street, and on to the reserve. Near Macdonald’s butcher’s shop at the corner of Terry-street and Rocky Point-road, he saw little Percy Carratt standing on the corner looking towards the reserve.

    “I said to him,” continued witness “Hello, Percy”, but he did not answer and kept looking towards the reserve. When I went on he turned as though to follow, but stopped. A little way along Terry-street I joined Miss Stone. That was about 5.20. It was just dusk at the time.”

Thought it a Girl.

    Mary Faith Stone, of Woolmot-road, Arncliffe, said that about 5.30 pm on the evening of May 28, after she passed Mr Murray she noticed a man standing with a boy at Macdonald’s corner. She had not seen the man since.

    “I saw him at the corner with his arm round a child’s shoulder,” she related. “When I got to Macdonald’s shop the man went with the little boy across the road to the reserve. The child had a haversack over his shoulder.

    “The man had a stiff leg and I thought that the child with him was a girl, because of its long fair hair. I thought the child was crying but am not quite sure.”

    “I went across the reserve towards the railway and the man and child went in the same direction, but at a different angle. When I got on top of the rocks near the railway I saw the man and child near the bushes.

    “I waited on top of the rocks for a minute or so to see if the man and child came on, but they did not do so, I passed on to View-street. There I waited also, and as I did not see them I went on. The spot shown to be where little Percy Carratt was found dead is where I last saw the man and child.”

    Questioned by Mr Kidston, Miss Stone said, “When I first saw the child I thought it was crying and that it was lost, and that the man who was dressed in grey and wearing a cap was taking it to the police station.

    “The next day I heard a boy had been found dead, so I informed the police of what I had seen. At the morgue I saw a little boy, and he resembled the child I saw with the man. Coming from the Morgue I was in a car with Constable Langworthy at Arncliffe and saw a man in the street. He was the man I saw the night before with the child. I knew him by his clothes and peculiar walk.”

Pointed Him Out.

    The Coroner: Were you certain he was the man, or did he merely resemble him?—I was certain it was the man.

    Mr Kidston: Do you see him now?—Yes, that is him now (pointing to Lovett).

    Had you ever seen the man before the day you saw him with the child?—Yes, I saw him on the same ground about a fortnight before. He was alone, and walking in front of me.

    William Michael Doherty, Government Analyst, shown a boy’s jumper said he found red oxide stains on the shoulder and near the armpit of the sleeve.

    Dr Meeke, of Arncliffe, said when he saw the dead boy at Moloney’s shop the body was still warm. Witness described the injuries later found by the Drs Palmer and Sheldon.

    Sergeant Harrowsmith stated that he and Constable Langworthy went with Lovett in a car to Rocky Point-road, Arncliffe.

    “After we had been in the car for 10 minutes,” he proceeded, “Lovett said ‘What are you running me about like this for?’ ” I told him we were waiting for Inspector Leary, who came along side, and he questioned Lovett.

Continued on Page 9.

…

THE ARNCLIFFE MURDER
————————
“COME ALONG, KIDDIE”
————
SENSATIONAL DOCUMENTS
————
PRODUCED AT THE INQUIRY
————

    Sensational documents containing statements alleged to have been made by accused to the police were read at the inquiry into the death of Percival Fred Carratt after Sergeant Harrowsmith had described how Lovett told of his meeting with the boy.

    Accused, stated witness, was taken to the morgue and shown the body, which he said was that of the boy with whom he had walked across the reserve.

    The First statement which accused was said to have signed was to the following effect:—

Alleged Statement.

    I am 17 years and 10 months old. I am a laborer and I live at “Horncastle,” Edward-street Arncliffe. I left work at 20 past 5 on the afternoon of the 28th May, 1923, and I walked straight up Rocky Point-road as far as the Recreation Grounds before Arncliffe School. Just as I was about to cross the recreation grounds a child collided with me, and I saved him from falling on his face and hurting himself in any way and I asked him which way he was going. He said he was going across the paddock. He pointed across that way, so I walked up with him as far as the place at the top of the rocks as I indicated to the police. When we were halfway across the recreation ground I asked him if he had been to school and he said he had, and showed me which one it was, and he pointed to the Arncliffe School. He started talking about the Sunday school, and which way he went to it. That’s about all he said, but he tried to point out the way he went to Sunday school. I left him looking across the railway and I walked on home. He did not say where he was going, and I don’t know which way he went afterwards, whether he followed me or went back. On 29th May, 1923, I went to the Morgue with the police and saw a body there. It is the same little chap which I met there. I know nothing about the marks on his face. I don’t know whether they were there beforehand or not. The clothing and bag which I was shown is the same as he was wearing. I had never seen him before until I met him on the 28th May, 1923. There was a lady going up the rocks in front of me and the boy. She was going towards the station. She got up on the other side and went straight on. I followed after her, but I don’t know where she went to. I have made the foregoing statement voluntarily after being cautioned, and the contents is true.

“Not the Truth.”

    Sergeant Harrowsmith continued:—“A few minutes after signing that Lovett, who was sitting on a couch with his elbows on his knees, and his head was bowed in his hands, stood up and said:—The statement I just gave you is not true. I want to tell you the truth about it, and get it off my mind. I did not leave the boy on the rocks where I told you, but lying in the bushes.”

    Lovett, said witness, then made the following statement, and signed it after reading it through:—

    In my previous statement I have omitted something. When Mr Leary told me the child was dead, I got frightened and I stated wrong in my previous statement. The boy did not collide with me. I called him from the other side of the road. I called, “kiddie,” and he came over. I asked him where he was going. He said he was going home. I said, “Would you like to come across the paddock?” He said, “Yes!” I put my arm around his shoulder and said, “Come along, kiddie.” I put my left arm around him. When I got to the middle of the paddock I asked him if he had been to school. He said, “Yes; I go to that school,” pointing to Arncliffe school. He said, “I go up that way to Sunday school, pointing up the Rocky Point-road, past the Arncliffe public school. By then we were near enough to the rocks, and he seemed to get frightened and started to cry. He spoke about some money, and he showed me something wrapped up in bit of paper and put it in his pocket, and I said it was the best place for it. He was crying, and I said, “What is the matter?’ and he just sobbed on. I said, “There is no need to cry.” I put my hand over his mouth while he was standing up. I pressed his nose with my thumb and forefinger, and he sat down. He was then in the bushes near where Mr Leary told me the body was found to-night. I held him by the mouth and nose for a couple of minutes, perhaps. I kept saying to him all the time, “You needn’t cry.” He didn’t reply. He never spoke again. I laid him down face downwards, exactly in the place pointed out to me by Mr Leary. I then left him. After he was laying down I thought he was asleep, and I took off his shoes. I was frightened because he didn’t speak and that is why I left him and didn’t take him home. I took the little chap into the bush because I thought it was a little girl. I thought he was a little girl because he had long hair. I noticed he had trousers on when I met him, but I took no notice of that. I just thought he was a little girl. When I took him over he started to cry, and I stopped him from crying by the ‘reasons’ I have stated. I laid down in the bush alongside of him while I was holding him by the mouth and nose. It was after that that I took off his shoes. After I laid him down he stopped crying. When I knew he was a boy, I turned him face downwards, and that is what might have done it. It might have caused his death. I then went straight home. I was worried about taking the child there, and what I had done. I worried about it until I went to bed about 10 o’clock. I got up at 6.15 this morning, and I left for work at 7 am. I went round the park by Wollongong-road, and I came up Station-street to behind the Elite Picture Palace. That led me up to the back of the Lyric. I then went down the other side of the railway from where I left the boy, and continued along to where I crossed the level crossing at Banksia. I had not got the nerve to go past the place where I left the boy in case somebody would see me and recognise me as the chap who had taken the boy through the recreation ground the night before, and for the same reason I came back that way to-night, when I was arrested by the police.

    “I am glad now that I have got it off my mind. The above statement I have read. It is absolutely true, and I have made it voluntarily, the same as the previous, after being cautioned.

Witness: EDWIN T[HOMAS CARLO] LANGWORTHY,
    Constable IC.
    29th May, 1923

    Sergeant Harrowsmith said that he then charged Lovett with the murder of Percival Fred Carrat. Lovett did not reply.

Police Inquiries.

    Mr Abigail: Did you hear anyone say to this young man, “Now, you are only a young fellow, and the best thing for you to do is to tell the truth about it?”—No, nobody said that.

    Have you made inquiries into his antecedents?—Yes.

    Do the police inquiries show that heretofore there has been anything against his character?—No, not so far as I know.

    Has he been examined by a medical man in regard to his sanity?—I believe Dr Palmer did.

    James Ernest Brenon [sic] said Lovett was an employee of his firm at Rockdale and on May 28 was engaged in handling red oxide.

    Constable Langworthy stated that while in a car with Miss Stone she pointed out Lovett walking along the footpath in Broe-avenue, Arncliffe.

    “There’s the man,” she exclaimed, and in answer to a question added, “He is the man I saw with the child last night.”

    Mr Abigail, addressing the Coroner, said that the lad before the Court was only 17 years of age. The evidence showed that he was not acquainted with the dead boy, and was not sufficient for a verdict of murder, but one of manslaughter only.

    The Coroner then returned a verdict of murder and committed accused for trial.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 15 Jun 1923 ⁹

ARNCLIFFE TRAGEDY.
———◦———
CORONER’S INQUIRY.
———
VERDICT OF
MURDER.
———

    The City Coroner (Mr Jamieson) held an inquest yesterday into the death of Percival Fred Carratt, aged 5 years and 10 months, which occurred at Arncliffe late in the afternoon of May 28. According to the evidence the little boy was sent, at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, on a message to the store—a distance of about two or three hundred yards. His failure to return made his relations anxious, and a search was instituted. Later in the day his grandfather found him, lying face downward, on a vacant piece of land in the opposite direction to his home. The following evening the police arrested Leonard Henry Lovett.

    Yesterday’s proceedings excited considerable public interest. There was a large gathering outside the Coroner’s Court, and that portion set aside for the public was overcrowded.

    Lovett, who is a tall, fair-headed young man, aged 17 years, was present in custody, and appeared to take a keen interest in the proceedings. At times he laughed and chatted with his counsel and his escort.

    At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr ER Abigail, who appeared for Lovett, submitted that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the Coroner in bringing a finding of murder. The evidence justified a finding of manslaughter, and manslaughter only.

    The Coroner found that death was due to asphyxia, as the result of smothering, caused by pressure which blocked the air passage, applied by Leonard Henry Lovett. The Coroner further found that Lovett had feloniously and maliciously murdered the boy. Lovett was committed for trial.

    Fred Marsden, a cooper, residing at 16 Terry-street, Arncliffe, grandfather of the boy, stated that he discovered him lying face downward in some scrub in the reserve near Rocky Point-road. The body was warm when he found it. He was fully dressed with the exception of his boots, which were found a short distance away. He did not look to see if the little chap was dead or alive, but carried him to Maloney’s shop. Dr Meeke was called, and he said the boy was dead.

    Dr AA Palmer, Government medical officer, who made the post mortem examination, said there were fresh bruises on the back and front of the head, and a small scratch on the left upper eyelid. There were abrasions on the nose, but these did not appear to be fresh. There was small discolouration of the skin on both sides of the neck, just under the ears. In his opinion death was due to asphyxia, and could have been caused by a hand being placed on the nose and mouth. He examined Lovett, and found he had a swollen knee. This would give him the appearance of having a limp.

    Dr S Sheldon corroborated Dr Palmer’s evidence.

    Joseph Henry Murray said that, between 5.25 and 5.30 o’clock on the afternoon of May 28, he saw the little boy outside Macdonald’s butcher shop.

    Mary Faith Stone said that between 5.20 and 5.30 o’clock on the afternoon of May 28 she noticed a man, with his arm around a child, standing at the corner of Kelly-street and Rocky Point-road. She thought the little boy, who appeared to be crying, had lost his way, and that the man was taking him to the police station. The man was dressed in a grey suit and wore a cap. Early the next evening, as she was driving along the street in a motor car, she saw the man whom she had noticed the previous evening with a child. She recognised him by his clothing and his walk—he was limping. The man present in court—Lovett—was the man.

    William Michael Doherty, second Government analyst, said that he found stains of red oxide on a child’s jumper which was handed to him by Sergeant Harrowsmith. The stains were on the back of the jumper and on the sleeve near the armpit.

    James Ernest Brennan, partner in the firm of F and B Applied Art Company, said Lovett was employed by him on May 28, and was working with red oxide.

    Dr WM Meeke described the condition of the body when he examined it at 7.50 o’clock on the evening of May 28. The boy had been dead about two hours.

    Sergeant AH Harrowsmith detailed a statement made by Lovett on May 29, in which Lovett admitted walking across the paddock with a little boy, whom he left looking over the railway line. Witness stated that subsequently Lovett voluntarily made another statement regarding his meeting with the little boy. Witness produced the statement, and said that Lovett, who had been sitting on a couch, with elbows on his knees and his hands over his face, stood up and said: “That statement I gave you is not true. I want to tell the truth about it, and get it off my mind. I did not leave the little boy on top of the rocks where I told you. I left him in those bushes pointed out to me by Mr Leary.”

    Lovett, in reply to the Coroner, said he did not wish to give evidence.

    Mr Kidston (Crown Solicitor’s Department) appeared for the Police Department, and Mr ER Abigail for Lovett.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 17 Jun 1923 ¹⁰

CORONER’S INQUEST ON
MURDERED BOY Page 9

…

CORONER’S INQUEST ON LITTLE PERCY CARRAT
————————————

LOVETT’S ALLEGED CONFESSION
———◦———
“After I Laid Him Down He Stopped Crying”
————
A GIRL WHO SAW PERCY LED TO THE PADDOCK
————
Solicitor Abigail Pleads for Manslaughter Verdict
————
ARRESTED YOUTH IS COMMITTED ON MURDER CHARGE

    A little more than a fortnight ago, Sydney, for months before happily free of crimes of violence, opened its morning paper to find that a little boy, Percy Carrat, had been foully murdered on a vacant piece of land off Rocky Point-road, Arncliffe, quite close to his parents’ home in Terry-street, the night before.

    The populace was stunned by the terrible news; but when the nature of the crime had been made known, a wave of horror swept over the community, followed by a wave of pity for the bereaved, at having had so suddenly torn from their sides a little boy who was as valuable to them as life itself.

    At first the circumstances of the affair had the usual tint of mystery around them—many were the conjectures made, and many were the solutions put forward.

    But with the passing of a day the mystery was cleared away by the police, with the help of invaluable information provided by an Arncliffe girl, Miss Mary Stone.

    That same night, a young man was arrested in Arncliffe, on the opposite side of the railway line to which the boy had been found, and was charged with murder.

    The youth’s name was Leonard Henry Lovett, and his age 18 years.

    On Thursday, when the Coroner’s inquest opened he was present in Court, and occupied a chair at the side of the court, guarded by a detective.

    He is a solidly-built, big-boned youth, fresh complexioned, with a thick cluster of ill-kempt hair, surmounting a very low forehead. His clothes were ready-made, of a thick, coarse, grey material, and hung loosely from his body. A pair of thick brown cossack boots, similar to those worn by soldiers, encased his feet. In short, in build and general appearance he is typical of the laboring class being brought from England as immigrants.

    Throughout the hearing he sat

Quiet and Unconcerned

in his chair, with his hands clasped in front of him, and his knees crossed. He seemed to be paying little or no attention to what was being said, except on rare occasions, when important statements were made by various witnesses.

    Long before 10 o’clock a large body of interested persons formed an eager crowd outside. When the doors were opened, they filed into the portion of the court set aside for the general public, and quickly filled the space behind the barrier.

    At a quarter-past ten, the City Coroner, Mr J Jamieson, took his seat, and then began the Inquest on the death of Percy Carratt.

The Father’s Evidence.

    The first witness called was the father, Edward Harry Carratt, a brickmaker, residing at 18 Terry-street, Arncliffe. He gave the age of the little boy as 5 years and 10 months, and said that he was born in that street.

    The last time he saw him alive was on the morning of the 28th, when he left for work about a quarter-past seven in the morning. He did not return until about half-past six that same evening, and then learned that his little son was missing. He joined in the search, and went to Maloney’s shop, about 250 yards away, to where the little chap had been sent on a message. He was informed by the shopkeeper that he had made his purchase, and had left.

    He and neighbours searched the locality, but fruitlessly. He drove over to Rockdale, and reported the matter to the police. Just as he was nearing home on the return journey, he was informed that the body had been recovered.

    The grandfather, Fred Marsden, who lives next door in No. 16, was next called. He said that he was in his daughter’s place about five o’clock, when he saw his little grandson sent on an errand to Maloney’s shop to buy some carrots. He saw him leave, and go in the direction of the shop.

    About a quarter-past six, the

Family Became Anxious

at the non-return of the little messenger, and a little girl was sent out to see if she could see him. In about three or four minutes she returned to say she could not see him anywhere. At that, he went to Maloney’s shop, and was there told that Percy had made his purchase and had left half an hour before.

    A search party was formed, and they made a search around the locality, but could find no trace of him. He returned and told his wife where they had been searching, and she suggested that they go on to the vacant piece of land off Rocky Point-road, and look there.

    He did, and searched the ground, but then could see no trace of the boy. Then he went over the railway fence that ran along the far side of the ground, moved along the inside of the fence, and came to the spot where there was a clump of bushes. There he found the boy, lying face downwards, with his head turned a little to one side resting on one hand. His feet were pointed towards the fence, and

His Head was in the Bushes.

    The carrots were in a bag strapped to his shoulder. He was fully dressed except for his shoes, which were not found at that time.

    He picked the boy up without waiting to see whether he was dead or not, and ran to Maloney’s shop where he laid his burden on a bench at the rear of the premises. There were marks on his face and blood in his mouth whilst it seemed as though one tooth was missing. There was also a bit of grass in his mouth.

    The marks were not on his face when he left home, the grandfather said.

    Soon afterwards a doctor arrived, and he certified that the boy was dead. Subsequently, the witness went with Constable Norton, of Arncliffe, to the scene where the boy’s body was found, and there the constable found the shoes, placed alongside of each other, about six feet from where the body had lain.

    In conclusion, witness said that on the 31st, he pointed out the spot to a girl named Mary Stone.

    Dr Arthur Aubrey Palmer, first Government Medical Officer, said that in conjunction with Dr Stratford Sheldon, he held a post mortem on the dead body of the boy at the Morgue on the 29th, and found

Small Bruises on the Head,

back and front, whilst there was a fresh scratch on the left upper eyelid. On the nose there were scabs that did not appear to be fresh, whilst there was some discoloration of the skin in two small areas on the neck and one on each side of the lower jaw.

    There were very pronounced signs of asphyxia, said witness, and the cause of death, in his opinion, was asphyxia.

    In answer to Mr Kidston, who appeared for the Crown, he said that there we re no bruises around the nose, but there were abrasions there that were old.

    “Doctor,” Mr Kidston said, “if it had been suggested to you that death had been brought about by a hand being placed over the nose and mouth would that cause asphyxia?”

    “Yes”, was the reply.

    And the bruises you found. Will you show where they were?—Below the angle of the lower jaw. They were not severe, but were such that were caused by pressure.

    He further said that there would not have been sufficient pressure there to choke the child, but he would not say that it could not.

    “Of course the tissues on the child’s neck were soft”, the doctor said, “but I would have

Expected More Pressure

than that.”

    In answer to another question put by Mr Kidston, witness said that he examined Lovett’s right knee on the 20th of May, and found that it was swollen, and contained fluid. It was surrounded by a lot of wool, and a long bandage. He did not know the cause of that except what had been told him—that Lovett had twisted it a fortnight before.

    The condition of his knee would cause him to walk with a stiffness that would give the impression of a limp, the doctor said.

    The Coroner asked him how the asphyxiation could be caused, and he replied that all he could say was that it had been caused by the blocking of the air passage.

    Joseph Henry Murray, a fettler, employed by the Tramway Department, living at 12 Terry-street, said that on that day he had been working at Wolli Creek, and was walking through Arncliffe on his way home with his wife and child. Just as they neared Macdonald’s butcher shop at the corner of Terry-street, he saw little Percy Carrat, who was looking towards the paddock.

“Hello Percy”,

he said. The little chap made no answer. They went on their way, and noticed that he turned to follow, but then stopped. They then lost sight of him.

    Miss Stone was the next person they saw, the witness continued, when she passed the corner.

    “I knew where the little boy lived”, said Murray, “and knew that he had to go down Terry-street to get home, when I saw him it was about 20 past to half-past 5”.

    At that time, he said, there was a half light, and when they were walking over the track on their way home, they could see fairly far in front of them, but could not remember whether he could see a good distance when he got to the edge of the ground.

    The young lady, whom the Crown has to give chief evidence, Mary Faith Stone, living in Wollongong-road, Arncliffe, was then called. She said that she went along Marinea-street, leading into Terry-street, to go into Rocky Point-road that evening about 20 past 5, on her way to her home, when she passed Mr and Mrs Murray as they came into Terry-street from Rocky Point-road. She nodded to them, and went her way. As she passed along, she noticed a man standing on the corner, near the butcher’s shop, with

His Arm Around a Little Child,

who was dressed in dark clothes, and had a little bag around his shoulders.

    She thought that the little boy was a girl at the time because his hair was long, whilst the man who was with him had a stiff leg.

    As she got to the butcher’s shop, the man and the child walked across the road towards the paddock. She then entered into Rocky Point-road, and saw that they were ahead of her. She crossed into the paddock near the telegraph pole, and walked up a small decline on which there were some rocks at the head of the paddock. And as she went up the rocks, she noticed that the man and the child were close to the fence where it overlooks the railway line, and near the bushes. The man was still walking with his arms around the boy, and in the direction of Sydney, but at a different angle to which she was going.

    When she reached the top she stood, but could not see the clump of bushes from there, the rise preventing that. She stayed there for about a minute to see if the man was coming, but as he did not, she then went on towards View-street, and on the way was passed by another man. In View-street she stood for a minute or so, but as the man did not come along, she went home.

    On May 31 Mr Marsden showed her a spot on the vacant piece of land where she last saw the boy, and told her where he had found him.

    When she first saw the man and the boy, she continued, she thought that the child was lost, and that the man was

Taking Him to the Police Station.

The man was dressed in grey, and had a cap on. The next day, when she heard of the child being found dead, and heard the description of the spot, she saw Mr Macdonald, the butcher, and then Sergeant Harrowsmith and Constable Langworth. [sic]

    During the day she went to the Morgue, and saw the child, and she was then taken by Constable Langworthy in a car to Arncliffe, where they drove along a street. As they went along she saw people in the street, but from among them she picked out the man she had seen with the little boy.

    “I recognised him to be the man by his clothing and his leg”, she told the Coroner.

    “Are you certain that he is the man, or strongly resembles him?” the Coroner queried.

“I am Sure It Was He”,

she said.

    “Do you see the man now?” Mr Kidston asked.

    “Yes.”

    In the Court?—Yes.

    She looked over to where Lovett was sitting.

    “Is that the man there?” Mr Kidston put to her.

    “Yes”, was her reply.

    “Did the constable draw your attention to him?” asked the Coroner.

    “I think he did draw my attention”, she replied. “I think he said, ‘Is that he?’ ”

    She was not very far away from him at the time, she said.

    The Coroner: When you saw the man with the limp, did you say, “That is the man?”

    The witness: I can’t remember that.

    To Mr Kidston, she said that she had given a description of the man to the police, and before the constable spoke she had not seen the man because it was dark, and they were right on him.

    “I did not

Get a Chance to See Him”,

she said. “From the first moment that you saw the man with his arm around the shoulder of the little child to the last when you lost sight of him, how long was that?” the Coroner asked her.

    “A minute or two”, was her reply.

    Were you near enough to hear him if he were making a noise?—I could not say that, but I thought he was crying by his action. He had his hand up to his eyes.

    Mr Kidston: You told us that you saw the man on the corner with the little boy. To your recollection had you seen him before?—I had seen him a fortnight before when he was coming home. He was going on ahead of me over that vacant piece of land, and was alone at the time. I had not seen him before that occasion.

    Was he limping on the previous occasion or not?—Yes.

    How close did you get to him then?—About as far as the length of this room (about 30 feet).

    William Michael Dougherty, assistant Government analyst, said that on June 2 he was shown a child’s jumper, and on the right sleeve found a reddish-colored stain. At the same time he was handed a sample of red oxide, and then found that the stains on the sleeve were of red oxide of iron. He found more

Stains on the Back,

whilst there were some on the sleeve near the armpit.

    “If a man were working in a place with that”, he said in answer to a question, “he would get it on his hands and clothes. If he came into contact with another person, that person would get it on his clothes”.

    Dr William Meeke, of Arncliffe, said that about ten to eight on the evening of May 28 he was called to the little shop in Rocky Point-road, and saw the dead body of Percival Carrat. He made an examination, and found the clothes undisturbed. There were some leaves and grass on the face. There was a slight scratch on the left upper eyelid, and a scratch that was partly healed on the nose. There were also a couple of marks on each side of the face under the ears.

    He found that life was extinct, but, judging by

The Warmth of the Body,

death had occurred within two hours. However, he did not come to any conclusion as to the cause of death.

    Constable Norton, of Arncliffe, gave evidence of having gone to the spot with the grandfather, and finding the little boy’s shoes.

    Sergeant Albert Henry Harrowsmith, of Kogarah, said that about 5 pm on May 28, he went to Maloney’s shop, on Rocky Point-road, and there was the dead body of Percy Carrat. His hair was fair and rather long. The body was fully clad except for the shoes.

    When Dr Meeke came, he removed the clothing from the body for the doctor’s inspection, and while doing so notice a red stain on the right sleeve of the shirt near the right armpit.

    About 11 am on the 29th, with Constable Langworthy, he saw Miss Mary Stone at Macdonald’s butcher shop, and she gave him a description of a man.

    At two that afternoon he took her to the Morgue, and she told him how the boy’s dead body agreed with the description of the

Youngster She Had Seen

the night before.

    At twenty to six that evening he met Lovett in a car with Miss Stone, and sat alongside of Lovett. They went to Rocky Point-road, and after driving for about twenty minutes. Lovett asked why they were running him about like that.

    “We are waiting for Inspector Leary”, he was told.

    Shortly after that he asked if he was going to be taken to Rockdale, and witness said that he didn’t know. However, about seven o’clock Inspector Leary came, and asked Lovett his name, and was told.

    “We have stopped you for the reason that you were seen crossing the piece of land down the road last night with a little boy, answering the description of a boy who was found dead on that ground”, Inspector Leary said.

    A conversation then took place between Inspector Leary and Lovett, and when the youth was taken to the place where the boy’s body was found, and told of that, he said that he knew nothing about that, as he left him on the top of the rock.

    They then took Lovett to the morgue, and showed him the boy’s clothes, which he said were like those that the boy had been wearing. When shown the body, he glanced at it, then turned away, and said that he was the boy with whom he had walked across the paddock.

    “That is the kid!” he exclaimed.

    He was then taken to the Central Police Station, where the witness told him that he would be charged with the murder of the child.

    He was asked if he wished to have the statement which he had made to them taken down in writing, and, after being warned, acquiesced.

    It was taken down, read over to him, and he said it was right. He then signed it.

    The statement was handed to the Coroner by Sergeant Harrowsmith, and was as follows:—

LEONARD HENRY LOVETT’S
STATEMENT.

    Leonard Henry Lovett states:—I am 17 years and 10 months old. I am a laborer, and I live at “Horncastle”, Edward-street, Arncliffe. I left work at 20 past 5 on the afternoon of the 28th of May, 1923, and I walked straight up Rocky Point-road as far as the Recreation Grounds before Arncliffe school. Just as I was about to cross the Recreation Grounds a child collided with me, and I saved him from falling on his face and hurting himself in any way, and I asked him which way he was going. He said he was going across the paddock. He pointed across that way, and so I walked up with him as far as the place at the top of the rocks as I indicated to the police. When we were half-way across the Recreation Ground I asked him if he had been to school, and he said he had, and showed me which one it was, and he pointed to the Arncliffe school. He started talking about the Sunday school, and which way he went to it. That’s about all he said. I can’t use the exact words he said, but he tried to point out the way he went to Sunday school. I left him looking across the railway, and I walked home. He did not say where he was going, and I don’t know which way he went afterwards, whether he followed me or went back. On the 29th of May, 1923, I went to the Morgue with the police and saw the body there. It is the same little chap which I met there. I know nothing about the marks on his face, I don’t know whether they were there beforehand or not. The clothing and the bag which I was shown is the same he was wearing. I had never seen him before till I met him on the 28th of May, 1923. There was a lady going up the rocks in front of me and the boy. She was going towards the station. She got up on the other side, and went straight on. I followed after her but I don’t know where she went to. I have made the foregoing statement voluntarily after being cautioned and the contents are true. (Signed) LH LOVETT.

    A few minutes afterwards, Lovett, who was sitting down with his elbows on his knees, and his face in his hands, stood up.

    “That statement I gave you is not true,” he said. “I want to tell the truth about it, and get it off my mind. I did not leave the little boy on top of the rocks, where I told you.

I Left Him in the Bush

pointed out to me by Mr Leary”.

    He then dictated another statement which was taken down in writing, and signed by him.

    That statement was also handed to the Coroner, and was as follows:—

    Leonard Henry Lovett further states:—In my previous statement, I have omitted something. When Mr Leary told me that the child was dead, I got frightened, and I stated wrong in my previous statement. The boy did not collide with me. I called him from the other side of the road. I called “Kiddie”, and he came over. I asked him where he was going. He said he was going home. I said, “Would you like to come across the paddock?” He said, “Yes”. I put my arm around his shoulder, and said, “Come along, Kiddie”. I put my left arm around him. When I got to the middle of the paddock, I asked him if he had been to school, and he said, “Yes, I go to school”, pointing to the Arncliffe school. He said, “I go up that way to Sunday school”, pointing up the Rocky Point road, past the Arncliffe Public school. By then we were near enough to the rocks, and he seemed to get frightened and started to cry. He spoke about some money, and showed me something wrapped up in a piece of paper, and put it in his pocket, and I said it was the best place for it. He was crying, and I said, “What is the matter?” and he just sobbed on. He did not speak, but just sobbed on. I said, “There is no need to cry”. I put over his mouth while he was standing up. I pressed his nose with my thumb and forefinger and he sat down. He was then in the bushes where Mr Leary told me the body was found to-night. I held him by the mouth and nose for a couple of minutes perhaps. I kept on saying to him, “You needn’t cry”. He didn’t reply. He never spoke again. I laid him down, face downwards, exactly in the place pointed out to me by Mr Leary. I then left him. After he was laying down I thought he was asleep, and I took off his shoes. I was frightened because he didn’t speak, and that is why I left him, and didn’t take him home. I took the little chap into the bush because I thought he was a little girl. I thought he was a little girl because he had long hair. I noticed he had trousers on. When I met him I took no notice of that. I just thought he was a little girl. I took him over there to have connections with her as I thought. When I took him over he started to cry, and I stopped him from crying by the reasons I have stated. I laid down in the bush alongside of him while I was holding him by the mouth and nose. It was after that that I took off his shoes. After I laid him down and he stopped crying. … …

    I then turned him face downwards, and that is what might have done it. It might have caused his death. I then went straight home. I was worried about taking the child there, and what I had done. I worried about it until I went to bed about 10 o’clock. I got up at 6.15 this morning, and I left for work at 7 am. I went round the Park by Wollongong-road, and I came up Station-street to behind the Elite Picture Palace. That led me up to the back of the Lyric. I then went down the other side of the railway from where I left the boy, and continued along to where I crossed the level crossing at Banksia. I had not got the nerve to go past the place where I left the boy in case somebody would see me and recognise me as the chap who had taken the boy through the Recreation Ground the night before, and for the same reason I came back that way to-night, when I was arrested by the police.
I am glad now that I have got it off my mind. The above statement I have read. It is absolutely true, and I have made it voluntarily, the same as the previous, after being cautioned.

(Signed) LM LOVETT.
Witness: EdwinT Langworthy,
Constable-in-charge.
May 29, 1923.

    He was then charged with having murdered Percy Carratt at Arncliffe on May 28.

    Subsequently, the witness saw Mr Brennan of the F and D Applied Art Ceiling Compnay on Rocky Point-road, Banksia, and a sample of of some red oxide was handed to him by Mr Brennan. That was handed to Mr Dougherty.

    “Sergeant”, said Mr ER Abigail, who appeared in the interest of Lovett. “Who was the officer associated with you in the examination of this man?”

    “Constable Langworthy”, was the reply.

    “I would like to have him called”, Mr Abigail said, “and I want you to identify him. I want to see if that is the man”.

    Langworthy was called in, but Lovett, who was standing a little behind his solicitor, said that he was not the officer.

    “Did you say”, Mr Abigail put to the witness, “ ‘You are only a young fellow, and the best thing for you to do is to

Tell the Truth About It’?”

    “That was not said in my presence”, said the witness.

    During Mr Abigail’s cross-examination of the witness, Mr Kidston kept interrupting, and Mr Abigail appealed to the Coroner.

    “I object to Mr Kidston interrupting me like this, your Worship”, he complained. “I don’t like it. You know, when Balaam could not speak, he got his ass to speak for him. Anyway I will ask your Worship to deal with him in a minute”.

    When the laughter following the little joke at Mr Kidston’s expense had died down, Mr Abigail continued his questioning of the witness, and received a negative reply when he asked if they had made any inquiries about Lovett’s antecedents.

    “Has he been examined by any medical man?” Mr Abigail asked.

    “Yes”, was the reply.

    “Has he found him to be normal?” queried Mr Abigail.

    “I could not say”, replied the witness.

    Mr Maloney, the owner of the shop gave evidence of having served the little boy on the fateful night, and said that he gave him threepence change.

    James Ernest Brennan, living at Burgess-street, Kogarah, a partner in the firm of F and D Applied Art Ceiling Company where Lovett was employed on the 28th, said that the youth had been working with red oxide, and used to rub the rough off before he went home.

    That evening, he knocked off between 10 past and half-past 5, and it would take him 10 minutes to get near the vacant land, because of the condition he was in.

    “What condition was that?” he was asked.

    “He was lame at the knee”, came the reply.

    In conclusion, witness said that the red oxide would stick to any person’s clothing if they touched it.

    Alfred Neade, a loco foreman employed at the Eveleigh workshop, whose back gate opens out on to the vacant piece of land, said that on the 28th, he returned home about half-past 5, and came down Wardell-street. He went down the track which was steep and sandy, just as it was beginning to get dusk, but did not see anybody there.

    Constable Langworthy, of Kogarah, said that he handled the case with Sergeant Harrowsmith, and was not away from him the whole time, being with him and Lovett when the statement was made.

    “Were you in the car with Miss Stone when Lovett was caught?” the Coroner asked him.

    “Yes”, he replied.

    Do you remember who first drew your attention to Lovett?—Miss Stone. It was in Broe-avenue.

    Now, just tell me did you

Notice Lovett on Ahead?

—She pointed to him and said, “There is the man”. I said, “Is that the man you saw with the little boy last night”, and she said, “Yes”.

    When Langworthy retired from the witness box, it was just on 1 o’clock, and Mr Kidston announced that that would close the case for the police.

    Lovett was then brought forward.

    “Do you wish to give evidence at this inquiry”, he was asked by the Coroner.

    “No, sir”, he said.

    “The lad before the Court is a little over 17”, said Mr Abigail, addressing the Coroner. “The evidence shows that he and the boy were strangers, I submit that

There Is Not Sufficient Evidence

before you to find murder, and further submit that it only enables you to find one of manslaughter”.

    “I submit that there is ample evidence for a charge of murder”, said Mr Kidston.

    The Coroner then found that Percy Frederick Carrat died on a vacant piece of land of Rocky Point-road, Arncliffe, on May 28, 1923, from asphyxia from smothering as a result of pressure applied by Leonard Henry Lovett.

    “And I find that the said Leonard Henry Lovett did feloniously and maliciously murder the said Percy Frederick Carrat”, he said.

    Lovett was then committed for trial on a charge of murder. Bail was not applied for.

    Later he was escorted from the Court by detectives, and was taken to Long Bay Gaol, where he will remain until his trial by a judge and jury at the next Sessions of the Central Criminal Court.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Tue 11 Sep 1923 ¹¹

THE ARNCLIFFE
TRAGEDY
————
LITTLE BOY DEATH
————
IMMIGRANT ON TRIAL
————

    The story of the Arncliffe tragedy was retold at the Central Criminal Court, Darlinghurst, to-day, when Leonard Henry Puddifoot, an 18-year-old English immigrant, appeared to answer a charge of having murdered Percival Fred Carratt.

    Puddifoot was committed for trial by the City Coroner under the name of “Lovett.”

    Mr Coyle, KC, instructed by Mr Lacey, of the Crown Law Department, appeared for the Crown, and Mr WKS Mackenzie, instructed by Mr WM Niland, for the defence.

    The Crown Prosecutor, in outlining the case to the jury said that on the evening of May 28 last the deceased was sent on a message. He failed to return, and a search was instituted. The boy’s grandfather subsequently found him lying face downwards in some scrub. A post-mortem was held and disclosed the fact that death was due to asphyxia. The opinion was expressed by the doctor that death might have been caused by a man’s hand being pressed against the boy’s mouth and nose.

    “The accused after his arrest,” said Mr Coyle, “told the police that he thought the child was a girl because he had long hair. When accused found out his mistake the child began to cry, and he placed his hand over the child’s mouth. When the child ceased struggling he placed him on the ground and took off his boots. Accused further told the police that the little chap ran across the roads and collided with him. He had a chat with him, and after walking along the road a little way left him. He denied that he had done any harm.”

    That conversation was placed in a statement which accused signed.

Second Statement.

    Barely was the ink dry on that statement, proceeded Mr Coyle, when accused said he wanted to make another statement. In that statement, said Mr Coyle, the Crown alleged that he gave the true story.

    Dr Palmer, Government Medical Officer, in reply to Mr Mackenzie, said he considered the boy to be stupid.

    Replying to Mr Coyle, he said that accused did not show any signs of insanity.

A Quiet Boy.

    Accused made a statement from the dock. He said:—

    “I did not intend to kill the child, nor did I intend to commit rape. That is all I want to say.”

    Edith Alice Lovett, mother of the accused, said that she and her son arrived from England in August last year.

    In reply to Mr Mackenzie, witness said she had a brother who died in a mental hospital in England.

    Mr Mackenzie: Have you had mental trouble yourself?—Yes, I was treated in an English hospital for meningitis and mental trouble.

    Witness said her son was very quiet, and was fond of children. He never left his home at night.

    Dr Robert Lee Brown, called by the Crown, said he had had accused under observation for three months. His opinion was that he possessed the normal mental standard of a youth of his age.

    Addresses of counsel were entered upon.

    The case had not concluded when this edition went to press.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Wed 12 Sep 1923 ¹²

THREE YEARS
————
FOR CHILD SLAYER
————
PUDDIFOOT SENTENCED
————

    Leonard Henry Puddifoot, who was found guilty of the manslaughter of Percival Fred Carratt, at Arncliffe, on May 28, was sentenced by Mr Justice Ferguson to-day to three years’ imprisonment in Goulburn Gaol.

    His Honor said he agreed with the verdict of the jury, because he felt satisfied that prisoner did not intend to kill the child. In view of all the circumstances he was able to impose a light sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 12 Sep 1923 ¹³

CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Ferguson).

    Crown Prosecutor, Mr WT Coyle, KC.
…

THE ARNCLIFF TRAGEDY.

    Leonard Henry Puddifoot, 18 years of age, who had been committed for trial from the Coroner’s court under the name of Lovett, was charged with having murdered Percival Fred Carratt, 5 years of age, at Arncliffe, on May 28.

    In a statement made to the police, the accused said he was a labourer, living at Horncastle, Edward-street, Arncliffe. He left work at 5.20 pm on May 28, and walked straight up Rocky Point-road as far as the recreation ground before Arncliffe school. He saw the little boy on the other side of the road, and called “kiddie,” and the child came over. The statement continued: “I said, ‘Would you like to come across the paddock?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I put my arm around his shoulder and said, ‘Come along, kiddie.’ I put my left arm around him. When I got to the middle of the paddock, I asked him if he had been to school. He said ‘Yes, I go to that school,’ pointing to Arncliffe school. He said ‘I go up that way to Sunday-school,, pointing up the Rocky Point-road, past the Arncliffe public school. By then we were near enough to the rocks, and he seemed to get frightened, and started to cry. He spoke about some money, and he showed me something wrapped up in a bit of paper, and put it in his pocket, and I said it was the best place for it. He was crying, and I said, ‘What is the matter?’ and he just sobbed on. I said ‘There is no need to cry.’ I put my hand over his mouth while he was standing up. I pressed his nose with my thumb and forefinger, and he sat down. He was then in the bushes where Mr Leary told me the body was found tonight. I held him by the mouth and nose for a couple of minutes—perhaps I kept saying to him all the time, ‘You needn’t cry.’ He didn’t reply. He never spoke again. I laid him face downwards, exactly in the place pointed out to me by Mr Leary. I then left him. After he was laying down I thought he was asleep, and I took off his shoes. I was frightened because he didn’t speak, and that is why I left him, and didn’t take him home. I took the little chap into the bush because I thought it was a little girl, because he had long hair. I then went straight home.”

    Accused, in a statement from the dock said: “I did not intend to kill the child, and I did not intend to commit rape. That is all I want to say.”

    Edith Alice Lovett said the accused was her son, and lived with her at Arncliffe. He was very quiet, and was never out at night. He was very fond of children.

    Dr Norman [sic] Robert Lee Brown said that he had observed the accused for three months, and with Dr Lorna Hodgkinson had put him through an exhaustive test, and found him quite up to normal standard for a boy of his age.

    Mr WKS Mackenzie (instructed by Mr WM Niland) appeared for the defence.

    Accused was convicted of manslaughter, and was remanded for sentence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 13 Sep 1923 ¹⁴

CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr Justice Ferguson.)

    Crown Prosecutor, Mr WT Coyle, KC.

THE ARNCLIFF TRAGEDY.

    Leonard Henry Puddifoot, who was found guilty of the manslaughter of Percival Fred Carrat [sic], at Arncliffe, on May 28, came up for sentence yesterday.

    His Honor said he agreed with the verdict of the jury. He felt satisfied that the prisoner did not intend to kill the child, and in view of all the circumstances he would impose only a light sentence. Prisoner was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour in Goulburn Gaol.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 16 Sep 1923 ¹⁵

HIDEOUS JUDICIAL ERROR!
——————————
SENTENCE IN ARNCLIFFE CASE A SATIRE
ON JUSTICE
————
Callous Criminal Treated Like Common Thief - - - Grave Feature
the Judge Overlooked - - - The Avowed Intention of
the Brute Beast
————
WEE BABES MUST BE PROTECTED

    A storm of indignation and righteous wrath has swept the community as a result of the inordinately light and absolutely inadequate sentence of three years’ hard labor passed upon the perpetrator of the Arncliffe outrage by Mr Justice Ferguson during the week.

    Without doubt this horror, responsibility for which rests on a loutish degenerate, recently imported from England, must be written down as one of the most odious and outrageous in the annals of Australian crime.

    The only extenuating feature, so far as one can see, is that the mental stability of the youthful monster, Leonard Henry Puddifoot, is open to question.

    Presumably, it was this doubt—and this alone—that moved the trial jury to find him guilty of manslaughter instead of the major crime of murder. Otherwise one fails to understand the verdict.

    But, scan or analyse the facts as one will, it is impossible to find an excuse for the sentence.

    Avowedly this hulking ruffian believed the tiny golden-haired victim, Percy Carrett [sic], to be a little girl, and in that belief inveigled him to the seclusion of a vacant, scrub-covered paddock.

    When the terrified child screamed, Puddifoot, in his fearful and frantic efforts to stifle its cries, smothered it to death. It was not until the child was dead that he realised that his victim was a little boy, and not a girl.

    This fact in no way lessened the enormity of the crime—rather did it add to it—yet Mr Justice Ferguson, influenced no doubt by the abnormally lenient view the jury took of the case, imposed a sentence no heavier than if the culprit had been a common thief!

    In point of fact, on the day preceding that on which he sentenced this callous slayer to three years’ hard labor, he imposed exactly the same sentence on a man who had committed an offence no graver than that of receiving a few pounds of stolen property.

    Truly, if the Judge’s sense of proportion is not at fault, there must be subtleties in the law altogether beyond the grasp of the mere lay mind.

    Though one is loth at all times to criticise a judge, this sorry attempt to apportion fitting punishment for a crime of this nature is too glaring, and too much of a satire on justice to be allowed to pass without comment.

    The reason advanced by the judge for so straining the quality of mercy was that Puddifoot had no intention to kill.

    Possibly he had not. But he had the deliberate and avowed intention of committing a crime that, in its ultimate consequences, may have been worse than death to the unhappy victim had he been, as the callous degenerate thought in his frenzy, a little girl.

    And the crime that he intended to commit is one that is punishable with death.

    That is a point that seems to have been entirely overlooked by the judge in apportioning punishment.

    Assuming that he did not overlook this grave feature of the crime. How are mothers and fathers, how is anyone, to reconcile the sentence with the crime?

Growing Evil.

    It is one that unfortunately, is becoming more and more common in almost every large city in the Commonwealth, and one which cries aloud for stern and sever judicial measure to suppress, or, in the absence of that, the use of the surgeon’s knife.

    The latter suggestion is one that is being very earnestly discussed in scientific circles in London and America at the present time, and it might prove of advantage from criminalogists [sic] and medical men to seriously consider the question here.

Protect Wee Mites.

    Any penalty imposed in such cases cannot be too severe. While such maniacs are at large, every mother of a little girl is haunted by the terrible fear something quite as bad, if not worse, than death might ruin the little one’s life.

    To destroy the moral fibre in a child so young is to expose it to the danger of a life of shame and degradation, which, in the final stages, means a living hell.

    Consequently, when such a brute-beast is caught, and candidly confesses his intention, it is the plain duty of the judge upon whom devolves the duty of passing sentence to see that mothers and their wee mites are adequately protected against further possible outrages.

    When fiends subject to attacks of sexual mania are proven guilty of atrocious crimes such as this, mothers and fathers have a right to expect that the monsters will be permanently removed from society.

Menace Merely Checked.

    There is ample accommodation in the gaols for pervents [sic] of this description, and in the absence of more suitable institutions or surgical treatment, the taxpayers will not mind keeping them there for the terms of their natural lives. The expense of their upkeep will be more than compensated for by the realisation that the menace to innocent child life has been removed.

    In this particular instance the menace has been merely temporarily checked. It should have been permanently removed. Good conduct may reduce the sentence considerably. Thus, inside three years, this callous degenerate will again be loosed upon the community, and practically given license to commit further crimes.
…

DEGENERATE’S DASTARDLY DEED
———————————
THE SLAYING OF PERCY CARRETT [sic]
————
“An Atrocious Criminal Purpose,” Says the Crown - - - “Thought
It Was a Little Girl;” - - - Manslaughter Verdict
————
SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS

    The atrocity that has come to be known as the “Arncliffe Case” reached finality at the Criminal Court during the week.

    Leonard Henry Puddifoot, the degenerate from overseas, who was arraigned on a charge of wilful murder, was found guilty on the minor count of manslaughter—for what reason it is difficult ot see.

    Mr Justice Ferguson completed the amazing business by letting the loutish degenerate off with a light sentence of three years.

    Taking his own statement, Puddifoot believed the golden-haired little boy, Percy Carratt, to be a girl and in that belief inveigled the child to a paddock, where, in trying to stifle his screams, he smothered it to death.

    Even at the Central Criminal Court it rarely happens that so appalling a tragedy calls for investigation.

    The youth in the dock, who is only eighteen years of age, was arraigned under the name of Leonard Henry Puddifoot, though from the Coroner’s Court he had been committed for trial under the surname of “Lovett”.

    The charge against him was that, at Arncliffe, on May 28, 1923, he feloniously and maliciously murdered Percival Fred Carratt.

Diabolic Outrage.

    The tale of this terrible tragedy has already been told in all its gruesome detail, and there is nothing new to add.

    It was the story of an atrocity that at the time of happening created a profound commotion. The indignation and the consternation of the public, were only partially allayed by the prompt arrest of the perpetrator of the diabolic outrage, and the generally accepted rumour that he had been found to be mentally deficient.

    It was some relief to realise that the community was not harboring a creature of normal sanity who could have conceived, much less committed, so vile an abomination.

    The victim was a fair-haired, girlish-looking little schoolboy of less than six years of age. It was eventually disclosed that it was the little chap’s elfish appearance—he wore a mass of long, far hair—that led to his undoing.

Child that Never Returned.

    Little Percy was the son of Edward Harry Carratt, and lived with his parents at 18 Terry-street, Arncliffe. His father is a brickmaker. The lad had been born in Terry-street, and at the time of his tragic death was five years and 10 months old.

    At about 5 o’clock on the afternoon of Monday May 28, the little boy was sent on an errand to Maloney’s greengrocery shop, less than 300 yards away from his home.

    The boy reached the shop safely, secured the bunch of carrots he had been sent for, and had the small change given him, wrapped in paper. The vegetables he placed in his school satchet [sic] and the wrapped coins in his pocket.

    When his father returned home from work, at about half-past 6 o’clock, the little messenger had not yet returned, and his absence had already created considerable commotion both in the family and in the neighbourhood. Search parties scoured the district and the Rockdale police were advised.

A Ghastly Find.

    Later in the evening, in a clump of bushes in a vacant allotment off Rocky Point-road, the body of the little boy was found, lying face downward, his head resting on one hand and turned a little to one side. The child’s boots had been removed and these were subsequently discovered near at hand.

Close-Up of Puddifoot.

    Through the instrumentality of a Miss Stone, Puddifoot was arrested. He is a big-boned, loosely-built, somewhat, shambling youth of nearly 18 years. He is fresh-faced and carried a heavy crop of unkempt fair hair. From the forehead to its dome his head sharply recedes.

    In the dock, beyond the furtive glances of his ever-roving eyes and a staccato stamping of one of his feet, he did not seem in any way disconcerted at the extreme gravity of his position.

Accused’s Mentality.

    The mother of the accused, giving her name as Edith Alice Lovett, said that her son’s surname was Puddifoot. She and he had arrived from England in August of last year. In Herefordshire, England, she had been an inmate of an infirmary, once for meningitis and once for mental trouble. A brother of hers, who had been sunstruck while on active service during the South African War, had subsequently died in an English mental hospital. In disposition her son was very quiet and he was notably fond of children.

    Dr AA Palmer stated that he regarded the accused as somewhat stupid, possibly somewhat below the normal mentality.

    Dr Robert Lee Brown, Government Medical Officer at Long Bay Penitentiary, stated that he had had the accused under observation for three months. In conjunction with Dr Lorna Hodgkinson he had applied to the accused several recognised tests for degenerates. There was nothing to show that the accused was not of the normal mental standard for a youth of his years.

Some Damning Statements.

    The principal evidence against the accused lay in signed statements he gave to police soon after his arrest. There were two of these, the accused having amended and elaborated the one he first made.

    In the second statement, in which he admitted meeting the boy and holding his hand over his nose and mouth to stop him crying.

    “When I left the child”, the statement concluded, “I thought he was asleep. … I took him into the bushes because I thought he was a little girl . . . I took him there for a (specified) reason. … I am glad now I have got this off my mind.”

The Defence—Insanity.

    It was disclosed that at his work Puddifoot had been handling red oxide, and traces of this stuff found about the dead child’s clothing, helped to establish Puddifoot as the creature who had caused the child’s death.

    At his trial before his Honor, Mr Justice Ferguson, the accused was defended by Mr WKS Mackenzie (instructed by Mr WM Niland).

    So far as he was personally concerned the accused youth contented himself with a terse unsworn statement from the dock:

    “I only want to say:

    I did not intend to kill the child;

    I did not intend to commit rape.”

Could There Have Been Intent?

    Addressing the jury at considerable length, Mackenzie urged that the accused was not a youth of criminal type. He had not designed the death of the child, and considering his abnormal mentality, could there have been intent? That being so, at most, he could be found guilty only of manslaughter.

    Senior Crown Prosecutor, WT Coyle, KC, contended that there was no evidence that would justify a jury finding the accused not guilty on the ground of insanity. In the belief that the child was a little girl, the accused had enticed the child away with the avowed intent of criminally assaulting her.

    In pursuing his declared intent with a little girl, and in order to stifle her screams, he had smothered her to death, his crime would have been well within the scope of murder.

    It was not until the child was dead that the accused realised that the child was not a girl! The jury were called upon to judge from the faces before them. It was not for them to extend sympathy. That belonged to quite another authority.

    The accused had enticed the child to that vacant allotment for a dreadful purpose, and he had only desisted when the child was dead. The accused must be judged by the results of his actions. He had taken the child away for an atrocious criminal purpose. The consequences that would follow upon their verdict were not for the jury to consider.

“Guilty of Manslaughter.”

    Having retired at 4.40 pm, the jury at 4.55 pm returned to Court. They found Puddifoot guilty of manslaughter. He was remanded for sentence till the following morning.

    A reason for the light sentence was furnished by the Judge expressing his agreement with the verdict of the jury, and said he was satisfied there had been no intent on the part of the accused to bring about the death of the little boy. In consideration of his youth and the circumstances of the case, the accused would be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labor, in Goulburn Gaol.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Sat 22 Sep 1923 ¹⁶

PUDDIFOOT CASE
————
ROCKDALE PROTEST
————

    A largely-attended meeting at the Rockdale Town Hall last night protesting against what was termed the “miscarriage of justice in the inadequate sentence imposed on the youth Puddifoot for the killing of Percy Carratt.” It was decided to ask the assistance of all the municipalities and shires in the State in securing legislation to deal with more adequately with such crime.

    Mr WR Bagnall’s [sic] announcement that he intended to move in Parliament that the law be amended so that the Crown can appeal against a lenient sentence, and that it be made retrospective to include the Puddifoot case, was approved.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 23 Sep 1923 ¹⁷

PARLIAMENTARY POST-MORTEM
————————
SENTENCE PASSED ON PUDDIFOOT
————
Mr Bagnall’s Attack on Sexual Perverts
————
SURGEON’S KNIFE AND DEPORTATION SUGGESTED

    Public indignation at the puzzling, not to say absurd, sentence passed upon the dastardly degenerate from overseas, Leonard Henry Puddifoot, for cruelly slaying little Percy Carrett, is still at a high pitch.

    On every hand one hears clamant calls for vengeance; but, while sentences of this character are calculated to provoke violence, and incite people to summary justice, the remedy is not there.

    Hanging a man to a convenient tree or gate post will not cure mental defects in others. At the same time there are other means of ridding the populace of a menace of this description, and the Government should move in that direction.

    One is to establish proper institutions to deal with perverts of this description; another is to use the surgeon’s knife; and a third is to pass such a sentence upon offenders that they will permanently remove them from the community.

    That something will have to be done, and done quickly, to protect innocent little children from bestial perverts of the calibre of Puddifoot is certain. Parliament had an opportunity during the week and failed.

    But public feeling is so strong that the hand of the Government will be forced sooner or later. Provision must be made to afford a greater measure of protection to children and peace of mind to parents. Meanwhile some definite decision should be arrived at regarding the ultimate fate of the youth Puddifoot.

    Public indignation at the sentence expression found in Parliament ¹⁸ on Tuesday night last, when Mr Bagnall, member for St George, moved the adjournment of the House to discuss the various phases of the dastardly crime.

    Dr Stopford, MLA, supported the member for St George in his attack on the loose system, which enables degenerates of the Puddifoot type to prey on innocent young children, and he recommended the use of the surgeon’s knife in Puddifoot’s case.

    During the debate the Attorney General (Mr Bavin) submitted to the House a statement from Mr Justice Ferguson in vindication of the attitude adopted by His Honor.

    In moving the adjournment of Parliament, Mr Bagnall (St George) said:—

    I take this method of bringing before the House the circumstances connected with the extraordinary case known as the Arncliffe murder case, in which a boy named Percy Carratt, only five years of age, was killed by a sexual pervert.

    Hon members would recall the harrowing circumstances of the crime in May of this year, when a child of five years of age, who was proceeding to a nearby shop with a message on behalf of his mother—a message he had frequently and safely undertaken on previous occasions—was foully murdered in broad daylight not more than 100 yards from his home, in a fairly thickly-populated portion of the suburb, where the most careful mother would naturally assume that her child could go with perfect safety.

    Mr Davies: Do you not think the case is one more for a doctor than a gaoler?

    Mr Bagnall: What concerns hon members and the people outside is the lack of protection to the community when this young man is released.

A Sexual Pervert.

    Whether his sentence had been three years or thirty years, this youth, upon his own confession, is one of that unfortunate type described as sexual perverts. I know of no incident which has so aroused public opinion, so filled the public mind with horror, and so thrilled the community as the sentence imposed on this young man. It is only twelve months ago, in August, 1922, that this young man, with his parents, arrived here from the United Kingdom as an assisted immigrant.

    Mr Bavin: I asked his Honor to furnish me with a report on this case.

    An Hon Member: Why not read it?

Judge Ferguson’s Defence.

Mr Bavin: I will read it if hon members wish me to. It is as follows:—

    Judges Chambers, Supreme Court, Sydney, September 18, 1923,
The Honorable the Attorney-General. R Puddifoot.

    Dear Sir,—This prisoner was convicted of manslaughter before me at the present criminal sittings at Darlinghurst. The question of his sanity was not seriously raised. … He was a boy of seventeen, rather duller and more simple perhaps than the ordinary boy of that age. The uncontradicted evidence of his previous character was that he was a hard-working, well-behaved youth, of a kindly disposition. No evidence was given of any sexual abnormality. … The little boy with whose death he was charged was enticed by him on to a vacant allotment.

    The prisoner admittedly thought it was a girl. His purpose was abominable. If he had effected it, there was nothing in his mental condition, so far as the evidence showed, to make his criminal responsibility less than that of any other boy of his age. He did not effect it. The jury found that he did not attempt to effect it. The child began to cry. The prisoner put his hand over his mouth and nose to check his crying, and very soon the little fellow became insensible, and probably dies immediately.

    I was myself astonished to learn from the doctor’s evidence how quickly a child could be smothered to death in this way, without the exercise of any violence.

    The only evidence of what took place was the prisoner’s own admission, but his statement was corroborated by the medical evidence. There was no sign of any violence having been used. When the prisoner saw that the child was insensible, he became frightened and ran away. He was charged with murder.
    I directed the jury that he was guilty of murder—
    (1) If he had acted with reckless indifference to human life.
    (2) If what he did was done with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the child.
    (3) If it was obviously dangerous to life, or
    (4) If it was done during an attempt to commit rape.

    During the hearing a discussion took place on the subject matter of the last branch of the direction. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there could not be a conviction for an attempt to commit a crime, the commission of which in the circumstances was physically impossible, and further that there was no evidence of any such attempt. I decided both points against the accused, leaving it to the Court of Criminal Appeal to determine, if the occasion arose, whether I was wrong.

    I directed the jury that there might be an attempt to commit rape, although no act of sexual interference had yet been committed. The jury acquitted the prisoner on the charge of murder. This amounted to a finding by them that he had not acted with reckless indifference to human life, that he did not intend to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, that he did not know he was endangering the child’s life, and that he did not intend to commit rape.

    I should have been bound to accept these findings of fact, even if I had disagreed with them. I did not disagree with them; I thought they were right, and said so.

    The offence of which he was convicted by the jury was the only one in respect of which sentence could be passed. I passed it after giving it very careful consideration.

    Into the question of the propriety of the sentence it is of course impossible for me to enter. It is always recognised that grounds of public policy forbid a Judge to take part in a discussion of the manner in which he has exercised his judicial functions.

    However disagreeable it may sometimes be to him to know that his conduct is exposed—and properly exposed—to the most searching criticisms, while his own mouth is closed, he must accept that as one of the necessary conditions on which he holds his office.—Yours very truly,

DAVID FERGUSEN.

    Mr Bavin: I want to make it clear to the House that, apart from this case, we intend this session to put a proposal before the Chamber with a view to trying to avoid the danger of allowing people with these tendencies to be at large in the community. I agree with the observation of one hon member that this is rather a matter for the doctor than for the gaol authorities.

    Mr Molesworth: It should have been a job for the hangman!

    Mr Murphy: What do you propose to do with this man at the end of his term of imprisonment?

    Mr Bavin: I cannot say anything about that now. It may be possible before the end of this man’s term of imprisonment that we may be able to deal with him in some way.

    Mr McKell: In the present state of the law you cannot interfere with him!

    Mr Bavin: No.

    Mr McKell: He is entitled to his liberty when he has served three years. Will you pass a bill before then?

Appeal by the crown.

    Mr Bavin: I hope so. Any convicted person has the right of appeal against a sentence, but the Crown has no right of appeal, the community has no right of appeal. I do not think that is right.

    Mr Dooley: Could you not deport a man guilty of such an offence as this?

    Mr Bavin: Yes, with the consent of the Federal Government. We propose to give the Crown the right to appeal against a sentence.

    Mr Loxton: I deprecate very much the terms of this motion. But I acquit Mr Bagnall of having deliberately made a statement which I think, in his cooler moments, he will admit, he was not justified in making. The matter mentioned in the motion is, “The recent killing of Percy Carratt, 5 years of age, by Puddifoot, sexual pervert.”

Why Sexual Pervert?

    I ask Mr Bagnall what right he has to say that any man, or any boy, or anybody, be he rich or poor, ignorant or learned, whatever his position may be, is a sexual pervert—when Mr Justice Ferguson reports that there was not a scintilla of evidence to justify him or any jury in holding that the convicted man was a sexual pervert?

    I take exception to the motion on that ground alone, and I quite expect Mr Bagnall to rise at the conclusion of this debate and say that, having regard to what Mr Justice Ferguson has called attention to, he very much regrets that he has branded this youth as a sexual pervert.

    Mr Bagnall: I claim the right, as a representative of the people, to express my opinion on any subject in any way I please, and to be my own judge as to what is good taste on my part!

    Dr Stopford (Balmain): We have to remember that this child is dead, this child beloved of his father and mother, and that the death resulted from the iniquitous act of a youth, whether a sexual pervert, a sexual maniac, or a sexual athlete, remains to be seen. This youth was a resident in Australia for only something like twelve months. I do not raise the question of whose fault it was that he came here. What I say is that he has no right to remain here. If he came from overseas, whether from Great Britain, from Ireland, or from Scotland, his proper place is back in his own country.

    An Hon Member: But the Federal Government would object to his going back; it has objected!

    Dr Stopford: The Minister of Justice knows that can be got over if the Federal Government is approached.

Surgeon’s Knife Advocated.

    If that is not done, I say quite frankly, and with the deepest knowledge of the gravity of the proposition I put before hon members and the whole community, that certain conditions exist in connection with sexual perversion in the male which can only be met by one of two methods. The first is segregation for life, and the next is sterilisation by surgical operation.

    I take full responsibility for that proposal, and recognising the great gravity of my words, I say that in cases such as these a man has no right to be allowed to remain a menace to our children. He ought to be made to realise that never under any circumstances shall he be able to repeat such an act.

Noose or Knife.

    I would go beyond sterilisation; he ought to be in the hangman’s noose.

    If he knew what he was doing when he killed this child, and the old Book says “an eye for an eye,” and I would be guided by that where a child’s life is at stake.

    Mr Davies: I thought you were not in favor of capital punishment!

    Dr Stopford: I am not, as a rule, but you put your own child in the position of this dead one and then say what you would do.

    If it were my child I would in all probability take the law into my own hands.

    This boy has killed a lovely child who ought to be alive to-day—a child who might have been a Napoleon, an Oliver Cromwell, a Galileo, a Georg Washington; and yet that child has met death at the hands of this young man.

    Mr McTiernan (Western Suburbs): What is troubling the public mind with regard to this case is the risk the community will run when this convicted individual has served his sentence.

    Mr Bagnall: That is my point!

    Mr McKell: In a little over two years’ time Puddifoot will be allowed his freedom, and he will have the same freedom to go amongst the community as any member of this House, or any person outside.

    In a little over two and a half years’ time Puddifoot will be able to go about the streets and prey upon the children, as he preyed upon this one. The sentence imposed upon him has not sufficiently protected the children of this community.

    There are married men guilty of conduct similar in every respect to that which we are now discussing. They go free because of the diffidence of parents whose children are interfered with.

    It is the bounden duty of this Government to make provision to ensure that such offenders shall be dealt with in an adequate way. The only adequate method is segregation away from the general community. There are men in high positions in this country who should be charged with similar offences, but because of the reticence of the parents of the children they go free.

Gag and Division.

    The gag was carried by 52 to 26, and on a division the House defeated the adjournment motion by 35 to 29.

    The Labor Party, with Messrs Bagnall, Skelton and Stopford, voted for the motion, and the Government and Country Party voted against it.

…

THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

…
THE ARNCLIFFE CASE

To the Editor.

    Sir,—Permit me to add my protest to those already registered against the amazing sentence imposed upon the youth Puddifoot by Mr Justice Ferguson.

    While not in favor of removing such an able Judge from the Bench for one error of judgment, I do think that it is the duty of the Government to have the circumstances reviewed with a view to permanently removing the menace, that is, Puddifoot, from the community.

    In my humble opinion perverts of this description, when proven guilty of a crime of this nature, should never be allowed their freedom again.

    Why the jury in this instance failed to arrive at a verdict of murder is beyond my comprehension. It is on all fours with the Colin Ross case in Melbourne.

    Puddifoot smothered little Percy Carrett in an effort to stifle his cries. Ross had a similar object when he killed the little girl. Ross was found guilty of murder by the jury and paid the penalty on the gallows. Puddifoot will have a good home and every consideration shown him for the greater part of three years; then he will be set free again.

    The duty of the Government is clear.—Yours, etc.,

     Auburn.

“R. M.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Mon 8 Oct 1923 ¹⁹

PUDDIFOOT’S CRIME.

    Sir,—What indignation the Judge’s sentence on the Arncliffe murderer seems to have aroused—yet to me the Judge seems to have the “Justice of Christ.”

    Are the people who wrote to the papers so good—so free from temptation? D o they not know what undreamed of sins one can commit on impulse, or realise how unfortunate Puddifoot was to have a temptation and opportunity together.

    Ah! that one could judge another.

    To me it seems this tragedy may have happened, at God’s will, to scare those cunning degenerates who (understanding fully their sin) think nothing of ruining the life of not one, but many, and such ruin that most certainly death would sometimes be kind, for to die gives the victim the sympathy of the public, but to live—how truly does it bring shame.

    Yes, I am a woman. Yes, I am a mother.

    I have seen life at its best and worst, and so to the Judge I say, “God bless you.” May Puddifoot find his soul and with it understand, and may his solitude teach him the finest things of life and lift him up. Three years will do more for him than ten.

    My sympathy is with all.

—One of the Soulless at 25 yrs.
Dulwich Hill.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Mon 15 Oct 1923 ²⁰

EUGENIC IMMIGRATION.

    The Puddifoot case has induced the Government to initiate a “psychological clinic.” And, logically, a clinic should also be established in London in order to detect the Puddifoots before they migrate.

[Name illegible]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Tue 27 Nov 1923 ²¹

THE LETTER BAG
——————
PUDDIFOOT’S CRIME
————
WHOSE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY?
————

To the Editor,

    Sir,—What a relief it was to read the letter from a woman in your pages last week (“One of the Soulless at 25 Years”), in which a hope for Puddifoot’s ultimate redemption was expressed.

    Puddifoot has been caught and caged for three years, and there is a howl of indignation from a large section of the public because he was not sentenced to the cage for a much longer period.

    Naturally, there is a fear that a creature as wanting in self control may, upon his release repeat his crime, or, rather, the crime that he originally contemplated, and with the greater cunning to hide his tracks that association with criminals may give him in the meantime.

    He has been judged to be capable of knowing right from wrong (otherwise he would have been sent to a lunatic asylum). But his crime must have been the result of a pitiful ignorance of all those things that go to make ordinary humanity self-respecting.

    While within the gaol walls will he learn anything that will help him to self-knowledge, self-reverence, self-control? If not, then whose is the responsibility?

    He is young, in three years time he will only be twenty. Will he emerge from his cage to be hounded and hunted, like an unclean and dangerous beast to the lowest depths? In the light of present public feeling where he is concerned there does seem a possibility of such a contingency – to say the least of it.

    And yet—and yet—ours is a Christian country, and this creature that we have caged is not a wild beast, incapable of reasoning, but a human being, having a soul “made in the image and likeness of God.”

    While the community holds him safe will an attempt be made to awaken in that soul a spirit of repentance, and a desire to live decently in future, if it is not there already.

    In Puddifoot’s regenerated soul the public would have a reliable safeguard, and there is no other. Such crimes as his are not prevented by the watchfulness of others, they are merely discovered after the event—sometimes.

    Christian men and women, clergy-men, philanthropists, lovers of God and humanity—Whose is the responsibility?

    Neutral Bay

—P.J.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 27 Jan 1924 ²²

SEX MONSTERS
STILL AT LARGE
———◦———
Small Boy Outraged at North Sydney by Another
Puddifoot Fiend—Fuller Government Talks
Hot Air About Punitive Measures,
But Does Nothing
————
URGENT ACTION IMPERATIVE

    In the past sex fiends who have been caught and convicted have received such astonishingly light sentences that it seems that our judiciary has only a vague idea of the measures required to repress these most horrible of all crimes.

    ATTORNEY-GENERAL BAVIN talked a lot some months ago about what he was going to do; but like every suggestion of the Fuller Government, which is loafing in unearned recess, it is still a futurity proposition.

    MEANWHILE the monsters prowl around seeking whom they may attack; the younger and more innocent their victim, the more enthusiasm do they bring to their deadly work.

    As might have been expected, while nothing is done to deal with sex perverts, each week brings further horrors by human monsters who wander round our parks, beaches, and even suburban streets, preying on innocent children.

    FOLLY POINT, North Sydney, is the scene of another sex outrage, and the police are looking for a man who lured an eight-year-old boy there by giving him a ride on his bicycle.

    It is believed that the same man was responsible for making a nauseous suggestion to another, older, boy the following day at Cremorne. He is at large.

    The North Sydney incident is a striking example of how dangerous it is for parents to even let their youngsters out of their sight for a quarter of an hour.

    That such a state of things exists in Sydney city is almost incredible.

    About 5 o’clock in the evening a man on a bicycle rode slowly along Ernest-street, and, sighting a little eight-year-old boy, stopped.

LURED INTO BUSH. 
Evil Brute on Bike.

    After a short, cheery conversation, he suggested to the youngster that he come for a ride on the cross-bar of the bike. Unsuspectingly the little chap went in the direction of Camray Park, which is further along Ernest-street.

    Arrived there they went through the Park down towards Folly Point, where, in the bush, something occurred that caused the kiddie to cry. Fortunately that scared the foul brute, and foiled his evil purpose. He let the child go, and the boy ran back home, nearly a mile away.

    There he told his frightful experience to his mother, and the police were communicated with. Constables Latrobe and Laney have taken up investigations, and are hopeful of making an arrest.

    The boy gave a description of his assailant, and this was supplemented by the description of another boy who happened to see something that had happened in the bushes.

SECOND CASE REPORTED.
Lollies and Money.

    The next day another sinister occurrence was reported to the North Sydney Police. A boy who had been down at Cremorne Point came home to tell his father that he had been approached by an unsavory individual whose chief characteristic seemed to be a few days’ growth of beard on his evil face.

    He offered lollies and money alternately to the little chap, at the same time making a revolting suggestion.

    The boy’s answer was to run away home, and his father lost no time in getting in touch with the police.

GOVERNMENT MUST ACT.
Sex Crimes Increase.

    As these assaults mount up, it becomes increasingly obvious that Government ineptitude is solely responsible for the fact that such types can roam around the country.

    Our politicians have voted themselves into a period of do-nothing-ness during which time (indefinite) their stirility [sic] is even more marked than when the House is sitting.

    Something must be done to protect our children and girls.

    Sex offenders get light gaol terms which soon allow them to come out, and perpetrate their previous offences.

    If sex crimes are traceable to abnormality which is a disease, then the mental specialist or the surgeon is necessary. As the law stands now, it is absolutely ineffective to check this class of crime.

    Perhaps another Puddifoot horror will move the Government to action.

ARNCLIFFE HORROR.
Puddifoot Sets Fashion.

    It certainly seems that, since that degenerate who delighted in the two named of Puddifoot and Lovett got a benign fatherly corrective sentence for a monstrous crime. Sexual perverts have been taking full advantage of the easy benevolence which is their lot.

    It will be remembered that on May 8 last year a little golden-haired boy named Percy Carratt was spoken to when he was on an errand in Arncliffe, just around the corner from his home, but a hulking, morbid importation from the Dear Old Motherland, whose junk, in human form, has been flooding Australia with unmentionable crimes.

    The boy, mistaken for an innocent little girl, was lured away across a dark open stretch of land near the railway line.

    There he was horribly handled and began to cry. His baby sobs terrorised the human monster who was with him, and, to stop them, he placed his big hands across his mouth, stifling his life breath.

    The cold little body was left lying in the bushes, and the foul murderer bolted.

    His only excuse was that he mistook the boy for a girl, would his crime have been pardonable if it had been a girl whom he had lured to the fatal spot? It is inconceivable.

    A lenient jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter against the gawky abnormality from Britain, and he was let down with three years in Goulburn Gaol.

    Men have been hung for crimes that showed none of the foulness of his dastardly deed. Heros’s slaughter of the innocents was hardly more revolting. That Puddifoot did not mean to kill the boy would only show a viler intention.

    The shocking travesty of justice in this case paved the way for similar examples only a few weeks after Puddifoot’s sentence to Goulburn Gaol, which, by the way, is the prison to which first offenders are usually sent. The idea of Goulburn’s penitentiary is not to make unfortunate people who have succumbed to overwhelming temptation associate with hardened criminals whose sole ambition in life is to do wrong.

    Puddifoot was sent there to intermingle with people who are on a much higher moral plain than the ordinary criminal.

    Why this brutal degenerate was sent there is another mystery.

THREE SHOCKING ASSAULTS.
And Three Light Sentences.

    During the last week in September three cases of assaults on little girls were tried, one at the Quarter Sessions and two at Parramatta. In each of these cases the sentence was singularly lenient. They put into gaol, for a very short time, offenders who showed characteristics of sexual abnormality and who were, and will be, a danger to the community.

    A pretty little girl of only five years and seven months was intercepted at Lidcombe while she was looking for her Daddy to deliver him a message about buying some potatoes.

    “I’ll buy the potatoes”, said an alleged “man” named James Felix Frederick Joy.

    “I’ll give you a penny and a pencil” he also remarked to the little mite, and he was as good as his word. A minute afterwards he took the pencil back—he thought he had paid too much to win the see child’s attention which was the prelude to the carrying out of his foul designs.

IN A PADDOCK.
Some Bestial Behavior.

    Then, according to the kiddie’s account of affairs, he took her a long way across a paddock, and certain behavior followed, and the poor little terrified mite was kept there until the sun sank and night came. Even then she was not released by the drunken brute who had taken her there. Hours afterwards he took her part of the way home and left her to go the rest of the way herself.

    This “gentleman”, when found guilty, was given two years! With gaol remissions for good behavior and such things he may find himself in a position to prey upon some more innocents in about a year from now.

    At the Parramatta Court, the same week the case of Charles Wilson, a young man, attracted some attention. He was charged with indecently assaulting a school girl at Kellyville on September 2.

BASHED ON HEAD.
Girl Knocked Off Bike.

    The girl had been riding along on her bike on the way to Sunday school. Accused rode a bike behind her and came up and knocked her off her bike, carried her to the side of the road, and there, according to her evidence, struck her three times on the head with a broken bicycle pedal. He turned her on her stomach and was sitting on her back when her screams attracted the attention of passing motorists, who hurried to the scene.

    The accused decamped hot-foot, but was arrested.

    For this little murderous-like adventure he was asked to spend a bare 12 months in gaol. Next time he may succeed in his head bashing and indecency assault.

    It was an unusual feature that this young man, when arrested, was found to have a pamphlet by Dr Richard Arthur in his pocket. It was called “The Choice Between Purity and Impurity.” ²³ His choice was a bad one.

PRYDE’S FALL.
In Bush at Yarra Bay.

    The Quarter Sessions was the scene of the arraignment of Charles Edward Pryde, a young chap of 22.

    He got a schoolgirl into the bushes at Yarra Bay on Sunday afternoon, October 29, and something happened that should not have. The evidence stated that Pryde’s brother stood by and watched the shocking episode.

    It had to be said for the accused that the girl in question was a doubtful quantity in some respects, and medical testimony was that she had had at least one previous episode. It was also shown that she and her girl companion had followed the boys and asked them for money.

    The allegation was also made that Pryde offered money in return for the girl’s favor, a suggestion that was scorned. But the insistent request for money went on, and eventually 2s were paid over.

    Because of these things the jury made a recommendation for mercy, and Pryde only got 12 months.

SEX CRIME SEASON.
Perverts Working Busily.

    Anyhow, by this time, the fashion was set.

    Puddifoot, most outrageous of outragers, got three years. Two others got one year, and one got two years. Since then, the army of sexual maniacs have been banking on such a deplorable state of affairs, and have been busy. Recent events have been startling.

    On November 15 a seven-year-old girl walked from Great-road, Abbotsford, into a lane which was long and dark. She was followed by a monster, who seized her by the shoulders, adding the injunction, “You scream and I’ll kill you!”

    The kiddie did scream.

    The monster shook her. She screamed again. He dealt her a stinging blow on her baby face. Again he struck and she fell to the ground, bleeding from the injuries his cruel fist had given her.

    But by this time her screams had become so loud and insistent that neighbours rushed out and found her. Of course the brute had vanished.

TO GET LOQUATS.
Down by Epping Creek.

    Less than three weeks later, on December 3, another seven-year-old girl was selected as a victim at Epping. She had been sent on an errand with her nine-year-old brother.

    A young man talked to them, sent the boy to get a paper for him, and meanwhile, suggested to the girl that they go and get some loquats, as he knew where there were plenty. She went down the road with him, and in the dusk, was taken into the bush near Pembroke Bridge, at Terry’s Creek. There she received a frightful handling and ran home crying.

    Though her infuriated father ran in the spot he could find no trace of the man.

MITE IN BATHERS.
Attacked at Sans Souci.

    January has brought forth three revolting cases within a week.

    On the 14th a young girl was attacked in the bush, while dressed in bathers, at Doll’s Point, Sans Souci. She ran, screaming, into a shop. In this case an arrest, that of an immigrant from the Old Dart, has been effected.

    On January 18, Folly Point, North Sydney, was the scene of a nauseating outrage on a little boy who cried and ran home leaving his attacker more or less foiled, but taking with him a hideous memory implanted on his impressive childish mind.

    The next day at Cremorne a revolting suggestion was made to another boy but he promptly ran away.

WEEKLY HORRORS.
Age of Ineptitude.

    It becomes more and more obvious that such incidents have become weekly occurrences. They will not stop unless the way of the sexual prowler is made terrible in the extreme. Such crimes must be fittingly punished, but it seems that parents who wait for the Fuller Government to do anything to protect their little ones will have a long wait.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Singleton Argus, Sat 27 Jun 1925 ²⁴

PUDDIFOOT CASE
————
SENSATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    It was mentioned in our telegrams of last issue that the Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) had refused to ratify the action of the previous Minister for Justice (Mr Ley) and allow the deportation of Leonard Henry Puddifoot, the 18-year-old English lad, who was in September, 1923, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by Mr Justice Ferguson for the manslaughter of Percival Carratt, at Arncliffe, and that Puddifoot would be kept in gaol until he has served the remainder of the sentence, and would then be deported.

    It is now stated that Puddifoot was to have been placed on the steamer Diogenes, which sailed at noon on Wednesday for England.

    The “Puddifoot case” aroused great interest in 1923, not only for the revolting nature of the crime, but also for the remarkably light sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed by Mr Justice Ferguson. At Arncliffe, in May, 1923, Puddifoot enticed Percival Carratt, a five-year-old boy, on to a vacant piece of land, and when the shild attempted to cry out Puddifoot but his hand over the child’s mouth, smothering him. Puddifoot, who had been deceived by the long curls of Carratt into thinking that he was a girl, then went back to work, but, following on excellent work by the police, he was arrested some time later. He was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, and sentenced by Mr Justice Ferguson tto three yours’ imprisonment.

    There was an outburst of public indignation following the trial, on the ground that the sentence was inadequate. The matter was debated at length in Parliament, but nothing came of the agitation. Some months ago the question of deportation was considered by the State Cabinet, and the Commonwealth authorities, on being approached, agreed to make an order for Puddifoot’s deportation back to England, his home country. The greatest secrecy was observed during these negotiations, and the public knew nothing of what was transpiring.

    Following on the elections, Mr Ley gave his official sanction to the deportation of Puddifoot, who had served only one year and nine months of his sentence. On June 5 or 6 the necessary order was signed, and arrangements made for him to sail on the Diogenes at noon on Wednesday. So secret had been the preparations that Mr McKell did not learn of them until Wednesday. He immediately took steps to revoke the order made by his predecessor, and a few hours before the ship was due to sail the State Governor signed the order cancelling Puddifoot’s deportation. The prisoner was immediately taken back to gaol, and he will remain there until his three years’ sentence is served in full. He will then be deported.

PUBLIC APPRECIATION.

    The Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) has been inundated with messages congratulating him upon his action in preventing the deportation from Australia of the man Puddifoot, before he has completed his term of imprisonment.

    The Minister said on Thursday that he desired to made [sic] it clear that he was not opposed to the man’s deportation; but he did think that such a man should be compelled to serve his sentence. He fearede the effect that the deportation of Puddifoot after serving only one year and nine months would have on those with evil tendencies.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 14 Oct 1925 ²⁵

PUDDIFOOT.
———◦———
PROPOSED DEPORTATION.
———
MR LEY’S EXPLANATION.
———

    At the conclusion of his address at Tempe last night, Mr TJ Ley (formerly Minister for Justice) was asked by a member of the audience why he had, as a State Minister, agreed to allow the criminal Puddifoot to leave the country before the expiration of his sentence.

    Mr Ley replied that, had he waited for the prisoner to serve the full term of his sentence, he would not have been able to deport Puddifoot. Having served the sentence, the prisoner would have been free to go amongst decent citizens, perhaps to have once more committed a terrible crime.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 10 Nov 1925 ²⁶

PUDDIFOOT CASE.
———◦———
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGES.
———
MR BAVIN’S REFUTATION.
———

    It appears that extraordinary statements are being made in the Barton electorate by Labour speakers regarding the action of Mr Ley (late Minister for Justice) and Mr Bavin (late Attorney-General) in relation to the Puddifoot case during the Fuller administration.

    Mr Bavin thinks it is only fair to Mr Ley and to himself that the part they played in the case should be explained, and he made a statement yesterday reviewing the position.

    “It has just been brought to my notice that the most extraordinary statements are being made in the Barton electorate,” said Mr Bavin. “These statements, some of which are of a most shocking and disgraceful character, are being made with a view to prejudicing Mr Ley’s candidature in the Federal elections. I have not seen the papers in the Puddifoot case since I left office, so that I can only speak from recollection. The facts are that Puddifoot received, for his shocking crime, a sentence of three years only. We regarded this as a wholly inadequate sentence, but there was, at that time, no provision in the law by which the Crown could appeal. In view of the fact that the Federal law provided for the deportation of offenders guilty of such crimes, and in view of the further fact that after the expiration of his short sentence this man would be released upon the community., I suggested to Mr Ley that the best thing to do was to ask the Federal Government to exercise their power of deportation before the expiry of his sentence, as I thought that if he were allowed to serve the full term the chances of his being deported by the Federal Government might be somewhat diminished. Mr Ley disagreed with my view, and thought the matter should be deferred till his proposed prison reform measure could be made law, under which person of the Puddifoot type could be detained after the expiration of his sentence for treatment. That is the last I had to do with this matter.

    “Some months after this, Mr Ley, I understand, came to the conclusion that in consequence of the fact that it was found that the measure could not be passed, it would be well to secure Puddifoot’s deportation, and took steps to that end. Before these were completed we left office, and Mr McKell, who is apparently a party to the use of this case for political purposes, determined that Puddifoot must serve the whole of his sentence before being deported. If the result of Mr McKell’s action is that the Federal Government refuses to deport this man, this Government will be compelled to release him at the end of his term, and will be responsible for his continued presence in Australia.

    “My own action in the matter, and also Mr Ley’s, was due solely to myu anxiety to rid New South Wales of his presence, and to send him back to his place of origin. Whether we were right or wrong in this policy, it is absurd and malicious to suggest that it was inspired by any motive but the desire to rid New South Wales of a very undesirable resident. The question of the completion of his short sentence certainly appeared to me to be comparatively unimportant beside the question of getting him out of the country. The disgraceful use that is being made of the case by Mr Ley’s opponents is a striking proof of their anxiety to distract attention from the real issue of the elections.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 11 Nov 1925 ²⁷

PUDDIFOOT CASE.
———◦———
MR MCDONALD’S REPLY.
———

    Mr F McDonald, MP, the Labour candidate for Barton, made the following statement yesterday afternoon.—“In opening his campaign Mr Ley introduced the matter of the Puddifoot case. The pamphlet now being circulated simply deals with the facts of the case, showing the amazing action of the late Minster for Justice in signing, several days after the defeat of the Government at the polls, a minute authorising the reduction of the sentence and the release of Puddifoot as a member of the crew of the steamer Diogenes. Besides that, the pamphlet points out the wide powers that the authorities, State and Federal, have to keep such a person, ‘pending deportation in any custody which the Minister directs.’ There is no stipulation as to the length of the time he may be kept, and it could be made 10, 15, 20, or 50 years.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 13 Nov 1925 ²⁸

PUDDIFOOT.
———◦———
To the Editor of the Herald.

    The speeches made by Labour members of the House on that motion throw a lurid light on the sincerity of Mr McDonald, the Labour member for Barton, and other Labour supporters, in making it the subject of a charge against his opponent, Mr Ley, that in June 1925, after Puddifoot had served a year and nine months of his sentence, Mr Ley was finalising arrangements to get Puddifoot out of the country.

    The following extracts are taken from Hansard:—

    At page 965:

    Mr Dooley: Could you not deport a man guilty of such an offence as this?

    Mr Bavin: Only through the Federal Government.

    Mr McKell: Do you know that the Federal Government refused to allow criminals who had served their sentences to leave Australia during the period the Labour Government was in office? The Federal Government would not grant passports to enable them to leave this country, because it held it would not be fair to other countries, although they were natives of those other countries.

    At page 974:

    Mr McTiernan: There is machinery which can be put in motion for the purpose of transporting this afflicted young man from Australia. (Mr McTiernan then quoted section 8(a) of the Commonwealth Immigration Act, 1901-20. … The public safety and the public interest of the State of New South Wales demand that action should be taken under this statute for the performance of ridding the State of New South Wales, and for that matter the Commonwealth of Australia, of the presence of this particular individual. … As the Commonwealth Government is the competent authority in this matter, I think that, having learnt all the circumstances of this case, it would be ready to take that action, which, I think, the people of Australia desire, so that this State, and particularly the young children of this State will not be placed in any jeopardy whatsoever through this young man remaining in gaol here in New South Wales serving his sentence, and then obtaining his freedom.

    At page 975, Mr McTiernan states:

    When he serves his sentence here in a State gaol he will be a free man, and can go to any other part of the Commonwealth. … Since this young man is still in the state of immigrating, is still an immigrant within the meaning of the Commonwealth Immigration Act, his presence in Australia is a Commonwealth question, is a Commonwealth interest, and as the Commonwealth has the power to deport him, the duty of the Federal authorities to Australia is to take the necessary action to have him deported from the Commonwealth. … I hope it (ie the introduction of this question into the House) will have the effect of showing to the Government the absolute necessity for making representations to the Federal Government, because the Federal Government has the power to send this young man out of Australia, which is a thing which should and must be done in the interests of the safety of the people of Australia.

    At page 976, Mr Murphy states:

    I quite agree with Mr McTiernan, that, seeing that we have no law in this State, which would entitle us to deal with this man scientifically, steps should be taken to force the Federal authorities to deport him. . . .The Government will be well occupied if it brings every possible pressure to bear upon the Federal authorities with a view to securing the deportation of Puddifoot, and his return to the country from which he came.

    At page 976, Mr McKell states:

    In a little over two years’ time—some people have the impression it will be three years before Puddifoot will be released, but he is entitled to the ordinary remission—Puddifoot will be allowed his freedom, and he will have the same freedom to go amongst the community as any member of this House or any person outside. In a little over two years’ time Puddifoot will be able to go about the streets and prey on children as he has preyed on this one.

    Comment on the above extracts is unnecessary, they speak for themselves, and the electors of Barton will be able to judge of the sincerity of Mr McDonald and his supporters after a perusal of same.

I am, etc,
JE NIELD.

Letitia-street, Oatley, Nov 11.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 4 Dec 1925 ²⁹

PUDDIFOOT.
———◦———
TO BE DEPORTED.
———
REMOVED FROM GOULBURN.
———

    The State Government will soon make arrangements for the deportation of Puddifoot, the perpetrator of the Arncliffe outrage.

    Mr McKell (Minister for Justice) declined to make any admission yesterday concerning the proposed deportation, but it was learned from other sources that Puddifoot has been removed from Goulburn Gaol and taken to Emu Plains.

    The Comptroller-General of Prisons (Mr Steele) said yesterday that under prison regulations a first offender is entitled to reduce his sentence by one-fourth through good conduct; that a second offender by one-fifth; and others by one-sixth. Puddifoot comes in the first category, and so can deduct a maximum of nine months by this means. Since he has now served two years and two months of his sentence it is not possible for him to come out of prison before another month has passed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 6 Dec 1925 ³⁰

PUDDIFOOT TO BE DEPORTED.
———◦———
ARNCLIFFE SLAYER OF LITTLE BOY WILL BE
SENT BACK TO ENGLAND SOON.
————
SENTENCE NOW ALMOST ENDED

    Leonard Puddifoot, the slayer of innocent little Percy Carratt at Arncliffe in May, 1923, is to be deported.

    On Thursday he was taken from Goulburn Gaol by train in custody, and lodged in the Emu Plains prison.

    While the Comptroller-General of Prisons frequently removes convicts from one gaol to another, the change in Puddifoot’s case is significant.

    State Minister for Justice McKell long ago made it plain that Puddifoot would not be let loose again on the Australian public, and there is absolutely no doubt that his stay at Emu Plains will be only as long as it takes the State Government to arrange with the Federal for his deportation.

    Puddifoot arrived in Australia in 1922, having been nominated for emigration under the name of Leonard Henry Lovett by his brother, who lived at Rocky Point Road, Arncliffe.

    A native of Herfordshire, carpenter’s apprentice by occupation, and sound physically, strange to say, he easily passed the slipshod examination to which emigrants are subjected in London, although time proved him to be a moron and sexual degenerate of the very worst type.

Mental State

    Had Puddifoot’s case been properly looked into before he left London, and his mental state closely examined, the tragedy at Arncliffe would never have taken place, and little Percy Carratt to-day would have been alive.

    Soon after arrival in Australia, Puddifoot obtained employment at a fibro-cement works at Banksia, and every day walked from his home there and back again.

    It was while he was coming home one evening that he met the little boy, who had been sent on an errand by his mother, decoyed him on to a large piece of vacant land at the back of the Arncliffe railway station, and then, on making the discovery that it was not a girl, as he had thought, smothered him.

    Quick work on the part of the police ended in Puddifoot’s apprehension, and sensational trial at Darlinghurst, when he was found guilty of manslaughter.

    The sentence of three years, regarded as a hideous judicial error on the part of the trial judge, Mr Justice Ferguson, brought protests from everywhere, but Puddifoot’s sentence stood.

    Over ten months ago, the late Minister for Justice, Mr TJ Ley, proposed to have Puddifoot deported. His sentence then was far from its end, but a change of Government spoiled the ex-Minister’s plans.

    With the advent of a Labor Government, and Mr McKell’s ascension to the portfolio of Justice, it was decided that the law should take its course, and that Puddifoot should pay the penalty, as meagre as it was, given to him by Mr Justice Ferguson.

Near the End

    With remissions for good conduct that sentence is now almost at its end. Puddifoot has not been declared an habitual criminal, and though some people believe that he can be kept in gaol indefinitely, the State Government can hold him no longer than the law allows, and, therefore, no more than the three years—minus remissions.

    He will remain at the Emu Plains prison while application is made to the Federal Government to deport him.

    There should be no difficulty about that, and when the necessary formalities have been observed, he will be placed on board ship—possibly one of Dalgety’s, which will sail in a week or so—and sent back to England.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 15 Dec 1925 ³¹

PUDDIFOOT
———◦———
SECRETLY DEPORTED
——
MEMBER OF SHIP’S CREW.
——

    It was learnt in the lobbies of the State Parliament House yesterday from reliable sources that Puddifoot, the perpetrator of the Arncliffe outrage, had been deported, and is now on the high seas as a member of the crew of a steamer.

    State Ministers decline to make any statement as to the whereabouts of Puddifoot. The Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) does not propose to make an official announcement until he considers that the time is opportune.

    It is understood that an arrangement was entered into some weeks ago between the State Government and the Commonwealth to send Puddifoot out of Australia. It is now stated that Puddifoot sailed from Sydney last week.

    When the Legislative Assembly met yesterday several members questioned the Minister for Justice concerning the whereabouts of Puddifoot. Mr McKell evaded answering the questions by asking that notice should be given.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Truth, Sun 20 Dec 1925 ³²

PUDDIFOOT GOES HOME
———◦———
“TRUTH” FINDS HIM ON DIOGENES

    “Truth” is in possession of confidential information which enables it to state that Puddifoot, the murderous degenerate, was placed on board the passenger ship Diogenes on December 7 and left Fremantle for England on Friday night.

    Puddifoot was placed on board by the Federal authorities, and will work his passage as a stoker between Sydney and England—a job for which he will receive the remuneration which the shipping company cares to pay him.

    The daily newspapers during the week published many scare paragraphs relating to Puddifoot’s deportation, but the Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) was unable to inform members of the Legislative Assembly as to when this degenerate had been deported, and upon which boat he had been sent out of Australia.

    Consequently, an air of mystery was set up concerning the deportation of the murderous undesirable.

    The prison authorities were approached for a statement relating to the deportation of Puddifoot, – but they countered all inquiries with the set-off that Puddifoot had been released, and, consequently, had been treated with the sympathetic treatment which all the released prisoners receive under the jurisdiction of the Prisons Department.

    It is highly probable that the Minister for Justice, when asked certain highly relevant questions with regard to Puddifoot, did not even know the boat upon which Puddifoot had been consigned.

    Puddifoot was placed on board the Diogenes with instructions from the Commonwealth authorities that he should earn his passage from Sydney to London as a fireman or a fireman’s assistant.

    The amount of money which Puddifoot earns, or shall be paid, on the trip is at the discretion of the shipping company governing the peregrinations of the ship Diogenes.

    One thing is certain, and that is, that Puddifoot, an undesirable immigrant, has been deported from Australia under secret orders.

    The full particulars in relation to his criminal history in Australia, have been forwarded by the Commonwealth to the proper authorities in London and the problem of dealing with this sexual degenerate is now, not ours, but that of the Imperial Government which was inadvertently responsible for his emigration to Australia.

    The Commonwealth is well rid of Puddifoot; Minister for Justice McKell is fully justified in his action; and the crime of Puddifoot in Australia should in itself teach the immigration authorities a lesson.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Evening News, Mon 21 Dec 1925 ³³

PUDDIFOOT
———
HOT DISCUSSION
———
MINISTER’S DEFENCE
———

    The excitement engendered during question time by the effort on the part of the Opposition to draw the Premier on the matter of Upper House appointments having subsided, further progress was made with the Estimates. But before going into Committee of Ways and Means, the House agreed to the amendment made by the Legislative Council to the Widows’ Pensions Bill, and the Lewisham Cemetery Bill.

    The first Estimate considered was: “Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, £696,712.” A good deal was heard of the monstrous Puddifoot. ³⁴ Mr Ness addressing the Minister, asking: “You sent him out of the country under an assumed name. If it was right, to send him out as you did, what was wrong with sending him away when Mr Ley proposed to do so?”

    Mr Hill also had something to say about it, and about Mr Gosling’s attitude, had really been fooling the people gentleman that he would go into his electorate next election time, “and let the people know what hind of man he is.”

    Mr Arkins was also very pronounced in his criticism of the action of the Minister, who, he declared, by his attitude, had really been fooling the people. The case was utilised to the full at election time. Waxing warm in his attack, Mr Arkins said common justice had been trampled in the mud.

Mr McKell’s Reply

    “I don’t know that I have ever listened to a wilder or more inaccurate or more unfair statement,” was the Minister’s opening of a spirited defence of the action taken. “He worked himself into a rage over some supposed injustice done by myself and Mr Gosling. He stated, without equivocation, that I blackguarded Mr Ley; but if the honorable gentlemen was challenged he could not give one instance of one word of blackguardism towards Mr Ley.

    “I challenge any man in this House, or outside, to show one word that I said that was not absolutely true.”

    Mr McKell went fully into the history of the case, the removal of Puddifoot from gaol for deportation when he had served only a short portion of his sentence, and his (Mr McKell’s) revoking of that order. As to his not answering questions on the matter, he said there were two considerations: The people on the steamer would have resented his presence; and the crew might have objected.

    “I deliberately refrained from making any statement until he was beyond Australian waters,” he said. “He had completed his sentence, and had paid the penalty, and now he is deported, and let me say it was on the same order made while Mr Ley was Minister for Justice.” (Ministerial cheers.)

Not a Mental Deficient

    Mr McKell said Puddifoot was not a mental deficient. He was not only not a mental deficient, but was a man above the ordinary average intelligence.

    Mr Scott Fell: On whose authority do you say that?

    Mr McKell: On the authority of the Government medical officer … I sent him away when he had served his sentence according to the law of the country. (Government cheers.)

    Mr McKell, who was subjected to considerable interruption from Opposition members, was followed by Mr Scott Fell, who vigorously defended Mr Ley.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

National Archive’s 1st file – Leonard Henry Puddifoot deportation from Australia, 1923-1928 ³⁵

[1]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

-1- ³⁶

[96]

Judges’ Chambers,
Supreme Court,
Sydney, 18 September, 1923.

The Honourable,
    The Attorney General.

Dears Sir,

R. v. Puddifoot.

    The prisoner was convicted of manslaughter before me at the present criminal sittings at Darlinghurst. The question of his sanity was not seriously raised. There was no evidence which would have justified the jury in acquitting him on the ground of insanity, or have justified me in leaving the question to them. So far as I could see, he was fully responsible for his acts. He was a boy of seventeen, rather duller and more simple perhaps than the ordinary boy of that age. The uncontradicted evidence of his previous character was that he was a hard working well-behaved youth, of a kindly disposition.

    No evidence was given of any sexual abnormality. The question was tentatively raised by the prisoner’s counsel in cross-examination, but such evidence as was elicited from the Crown witnesses went to negative anything of the sort. The medical evidence was that no inference that he was other than normal could be drawn from his conduct. There was no issue before the Court on which an enquiry on this point could properly be made.

    The little boy with whose death he was charged was enticed by him on to a vacant allotment. The prisoner admittedly thought it was a girl. His purpose was abominable. If he had effected it, there was nothing in his mental condition, so far as the evidence showed, to make his criminal responsibility less than that of any other boy of his age. He did not effect it. The jury found that he did not attempt to effect it.

    The child began to cry. The prisoner put his hand over his mouth and nose to check his crying, and very soon the little fellow became insensible, and probably died immediately.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

 -2-

[97]

I was myself astonished to find from the doctor’s evidence how quickly a child could be smothered to death in this way, without the exercise of any violence. The only evidence of what took place was the prisoner’s own admission, but his statement was corroborated by the medical evidence. There was no sign of any violence having been used. When the prisoner saw that the child was insensible, he became frightened and ran away.

    He was charged with murder. I directed the jury that he was guilty of murder (1) if he had acted with reckless indifference to human life, (2) if what he did was done with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the child, (3) if it was obviously dangerous to life, or (4) if it was done during an attempt to commit rape.

    During the hearing a discussion took place on the subject matter of the last branch of the direction. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there could not be a conviction for an attempt to commit a crime the commission of which in the circumstances was physically impossible, and further that there was no evidence of any such attempt. I decided both points against the accused, leaving it to the Court of Criminal Appeal to determine, if the occasion arose, whether I was wrong. I directed the jury that there might be an attempt to commit rape, although no act of sexual interference had yet been committed.

    The jury acquitted the prisoner on the charge of murder. This amounted to a finding by them that he had not acted with reckless indifference to human life, that he did not intend to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, that he did now know he was endangering the child’s life, and that he did not attempt to commit rape. I should have been bound to accept these findings of fact, even if I had disagreed with them. I did not disagree with them; I thought they were right, and said so. The offence of which he was convicted by the jury was the only one in respect of which sentence could be passed. I passed it after

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-3-

[98]

giving it careful consideration.

    Into the question of the propriety of the sentence it is of course impossible for me to enter. It is always recognised that grounds of public policy forbid a Judge to take part in a discussion of the manner in which he has exercised his judicial functions. However disagreeable it may sometimes be to him to know that his conduct is exposed – and properly exposed – to the most searching criticism while his own mouth is closed, he must accept that as one of the necessary conditions on which he holds his office.

Yours very truly,
[Signed] David Ferguson.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-1- ³⁷

[92]

SUMMING UP.

At 4.25 pm

His Honor: Gentlemen of the Jury, the prisoner is
the murder of Percival Fred Carratt. It lies upon
prove to your satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that
came to his death by the act of the accused, and that th
an unlawful act. If so, then it may be either murder or mansl[augh]
ter, and it will be for you to consider whether either of the
offences is proved. Some evidence has been given as to the
mental condition of the accused. His counsel expressly put a
that he does not ask you to find that the accused was insane at
the time of committing the offence, but he puts it to you as a
question for your consideration in determining the int
the accused insofar as his intention becomes material

    The facts submitted are these, that on the
the little child was in the company of the accused
allotment; that he was last seen alive in the comp
accused and was afterwards found dead near the place whe
seen with the accused. On examination of the body it was
that the child had been asphyxiated. Apart from the state
the accused himself, that is practically the state of the
if it rested there it would be for you to say whether the
enough to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt that there’s
other reasonable explanation of the facts except that
brought about the death of the child. It does not
accused when arrested made a statement that has been
and the effect of it is this. No adults that he m
child, thought it was a girl, and induced the child
him on the vacant allotment with the intention of
tion with it. The little child was crying. That t
testimony of an independent witness, the young la
together, and the accused has said that to ord
crying he caught it by the nose and pressed the nose
and evidence that up to the time that the child
anything at all to the nature of an attempt to

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-2-

[93] 

Pierce. The only evidence
his own evidence. He says it was
that he put his hands down and discovered that
source the Crown charges that the child came to
the act of the Accused while he was attempting
It does seem a curious thing that any one co
rape on a male person, but the authorities sc
t so, although it is a matter of doubt. Of co
to commit rape might commence before any actual
that the Crown puts the case before you in this way,
that the act which brought about the death of the child
der. It was murder if it was done with reckless indifference
human life or done with intent to kill the child or if it was
done with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on the child
or if it was done in the course of an attempt to commit rape,
if it was done during the commission of an act obviously
to life. The Crown must prove one of those things to your
faction and beyond a reasonable doubt. The only evidence
as to what took place over on that vacant allotment but
child and the accused is the statement made by the accused him-
self. If you accept that statement, then it is for you to
exactly what was the set of facts which resulted in the
death. If you do not accept it fully then you must
inferences from the circumstances. You cannot
upon any inference you draw from and circumstances
inference is the only one that you could draw and which
could be drawn from the facts. I do not think the Crown
suggests that the facts show any intent to kill or to
grievous bodily harm, that is, say actual intent to do
Crown prosecutor does charge that the accused was sit
commit rape. There is no evidence on the body of anything
kind. There is the admission of the accused that he and
that intent, but it would be going a long
commenced to put that intent tow
the point of an attempt, if not
s told you. In order

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-3-

[94]

around you must find that it was during an act
commit rape that the fatal act was done. Then
was it done during the commission of an act obviously dang
to life. Now the admitted act which he himself says took place
was that he held the nose of the child so that it could not
breathe in order to prevent it from crying. That the doctor tells
you in an act obviously dangerous to life, that it would be
probable that a child at that age would be killed by being pre-
vented from breathing for 2 minutes. The question for you is
was it obvious to the accused that it was dangerous to life. When
the accused did it was it obvious to him that what he was doing
was something likely to kill the child. It is on that part of
the case that his counsel asks you to take into consideration
the evidence that has been given as to his intelligence. He is
about 17 years of age. One or two witnesses have described him
as being dull, silly, rather stupid. Mr Palmer tells you he
looked upon him as having less than normal intelligence. Dr
Lee Brown says that after having him under observation for two
or three months he came to the conclusion that the accused came
up to the usual standard of intelligence for boys of his age.
There is a question for you gentlemen. Dr Palmer admits ve
frankly that the fact that the child ceased to struggle was a
fact that might probably deceive the accused as to the effect of
what he was doing. It was quite possible that he would not
realise when the child ceased to struggle that that was because
the child’s life was leaving it and that it might prevent the
accused from realising the full effect of what he was doing.
Those are matters for you. It is a fact that in consequence of
the act of this youth – a wicked act if you believe his own state-
ment – this poor little child lost its life. If you come to
the conclusion that that act of his was done with reckless in-
difference to human life or done with intent to kill or inflict
grievous bodily harm on the child, or was done in the course of
an act with intent to commit rape at a time when he believed it
was a little girl, or if you believe that when he placed the

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-4-

[95]

nostrils of the little boy and prevented him from breathing he
was doing an act which it was obvious to him was dangerous to
life, then as it did result in the boy’s death he is guilty of
muder murder. If you do not find him guilty of murder, but
you find he was guilty of an unlawful act which caused the death
of the child, then he is guilty of manslaughter. It is for you
to say whether he is guilty of one or the other, and if you have
any reasonable doubt as to whether he is guilty of murder,
then it is your duty to acquit him of that charge. If you have any
reasonable doubt whether he is guilty of an unlawful act of any
kind which brought about the death of the child, then it is your
duty to find him guilty, either of manslaughter or of murder if
you are satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt. In considering
the question of the accused’s guilt, the only evidence of his
character hitherto is that he had been a boy of good character,
and it is your duty to take that into consideration as some
evidence in his favour.

    Please consider your verdict.

    At 4-40 pm Jury retired.
    At 4-55 pm Jury returned with a verdict of

 GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.
(Accused was remanded till next day for sentence.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-1-

[91]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[70]

IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
       HOLDEN AT SYDNEY
                  ————

CORAM: FERGUSON, J and a JURY OF TWELVE,
Tuesday, 11th September, 1923.

REX -v- LEONARD PUDDIFOOT

–  : I   N   D   E   X  : –

Witness PALMER, AA  SHELDON, S MEEKE, WM MARSDEN, F DOHERTY, WM STONE, MF MURRAY, JH MALONEY, MJ BRENNAN, JE CARRATT, EH NORTH, CF LANGWORTHY, RT HARROWSMITH, AH For the defence ACCUSED (Statement)  LOVETT, EA CASSIDY, A Case in reply BROWN, RL

X at page. 1 4 4 5 7 7 9 10 11 12 12 13 14   17 17 18  19

XX at page. 2 4 – 6 – 9 10 11 11 – – 13 17   – 18 18 19

RE-X at page. 4 – – – – – – – 12 – – – – – – – –

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-1-

[71]

IN THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HOLDEN AT SYDNEY

CORAM: FERGUSON, J, and a Jury of Twelve.
Tuesday, 11th September, 1923.

REX v. LEONARD PUDDIFOOT

CHARGE:   For that he on the 28th May, 1923 at Arncliffe did feloniously and maliciously murder Percival Fred Carratt.
PLEA:        Not Guilty.

- - - - -

MR McKENZIE appeared for the accused.
MR COYLE appeared as Crown Prosecutor.

- - - - -

(At 11.55 am Crown Prosecutor opened to the Jury.)

- - - - -

ARTHUR AUBREY PALMER.
Sworn examined deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor: I am Government Medical Officer at Sydney.
At the Sydney Morgue on the 29th May last in conjunction with Dr Stratford Sheldon I made an internal examination of the dead body of a boy identified to me as Percival Fred Carratt.

    (Accused, on the advice of his counsel admitted the body the doctor examined was the body of Percival Fred Carratt.)

Dr Sheldon was with me at the time. There was a number of small injuries. There were four small bruises on the scalp – one on the right side of the head, and the others behind and on the left side. There was a small scratch on the left upper eyelid. The skin was discolored on two small areas behind the angle of the jaw, one on each side of the neck. The angle of the jaw is the prominent part that sticks out. Underneath the skin there was some blood no doubt due to bruises. That could be caused by fingers. They were small areas such as would be caused by the tips of the fingers. There was an abrasion on the nose, but I do not think that was recent. I think that was healing. Internally there were pronounced signs of definite asphyxia. Asphyxia is something that prevents the introduction of air and oxygen into the tissues of the body. The body was healthy, and the air passage was free except for a little bloody froth caused by the asphyxia.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-2-

[72]

[Some text missing here]

deprivation of oxygen must have come from without – something blocking the air passages. That could have been caused by somebody holding a hand over the child’s mouth and nose for a period of 2 minutes. The child was between 5 and 6 years old. It was not a large or robustly made child, but sound. Stopping the breath of the child for two minutes would be an act obviously dangerous to life. I cannot give any definitive period of stopping the breath that would cause loss of life. It varies with different people. In a little child much less than 2 minutes would result in aphyxia [sic]. The bruises on the neck could have been caused by fingers. They could have been caused by the tips of the fingers. They were not severe. I do not think sufficient pressure could have been used to restrict the air passage with the fingers. I afterwards examined the accused. He has a big strong hand. Taking that into account, the aphyxia and the marks could have been caused by the one hand. The next day – the 30th – I examined the accused. He had an injured knee – the right knee. It was swollen and apparently it contained fluid and was bandaged with cotton wool. He walked with a stiff knee. That would give the impression of a limp. When he was brought in I spoke to him about his knee, and he said he had sprained it about a fortnight before and was being treated by a Dr Herne for it. The dead child had long hair. It was like a little girl’s hair.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

Mr McKenzie:

Q. There were certain small bruises on the scalp which were not severe?
A. Nothing to do with the cause of death.

Q. You told us that in your opinion there was not sufficient violence to restrict the air passage by attempted struggling?
A. I do not think so. It does not take very much with a young child, but I think there would have been more bruising on the child if it had been strangled in that way.

Q. It is a fact that where death is caused by strangulation murders [sic] use more force generally than is necessary to effect that purpose?
A. Yes, I think that applied to all forms of murder – where it is done deliberately.

Q. The marks were not severe?
A. No.

Q. I suppose the fact of a hand being across the nose and mouth might cause the first smyptons [sic] of strangulation – cause insensibility in a very short space of time?
A. Yes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-3-

[73]

Q. It is possible that shock may have been partly the cause of death?
A. No, I do not think so. I think death undoubtedly was through aphyxia. But I think in call cases, especially in a young child, there is a certain amount of shock. Most of these cases are accompanied by a certain amount of shock.

Q. Would the shock in the case of a child like this have the effect of preventing its struggling?
A. Yes.

Q. In your opinion would that have the effect that a person would not realise the effect that would have on the child so quickly?
A. Would not realise that the pressure was causing so much danger, seeing that the child was struggling?

Q. Yes [sic].
A. Yes, I think that is so; I think that is possible.

Q. You examined the accused?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you form any opinion of his mental capabilities or mental capacity condition?
A. I had an impression formed, but I did not go into that matter fully, because he was brought to me to have his knee examined. But in talking to him for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour I thought he was a stupid lad and below normal. But that is merely an impression. I would not like to give that as a scientific fact. I did not examine very particularly for that.

Q. The impression he gave to your mind was that he was not normal?
A. Yes, that is the impression he gave.

Q. You examined the child too for any signs of an attempt at sexual intercourse?
A. Yes.

Q. You found no signs of any attempt?
A. No signs.

Q. You also noticed there were two teeth missing?
A. No, the child had some decayed teeth. They were broken off. I do not think they were broken off at this time. They were decayed and crumbling teeth.

Q. As to the bloody froth that you mentioned, it is a fact that after death from aphyxia there would be blood in the mouth?
A. There might be. Very often there is some bloody fluid. Sometimes there is a little blood from the indentations of the teeth on the tongue.

Q. Could you say from your observation of the injuries that it was an abnormal act?
A. Do you mean the crime?

Q. In your opinion would you take say that the fact in itself that the accused having the desire or intention to have sexual intercourse with [some text missing here]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

-4-

[74]

A. Yes, I think if he is abnormal.

RE EXAMINATION:

To Crown Prosecutor: Whether it was abnormal or not, to a normal man the desire for connection with a small child would always appear to be abnormal?
A. Yes.

Q. Have you had the advantage of hearing the statement that the accused made in which he expressed his satisfaction that he had got it off his mind?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you know whether it is suggested to you that he was mad, or anything of that kind?
A. He is not insane. I have no reason to believe he is. I have not investigated the case from that side at all.

Q. Did you see any signs of insanity about him?
A. No.

(Witness retired).

STRATFORD SHELDON:
sworn, examined, deposed:

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a legally qualified medical practitioner, practising in Sydney. In conjunction with Dr Palmer on the 29th May last I made an internal examination of the dead body of a child who is now admitted to be Percival Fred Carratt. I have nothing whatever to add to what Dr Palmer says. I agree with his evidence. I know nothing about the accused. As regards the examination of the child I agree with what Dr Palmer has said.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

Mr McKenzie:

Q. You heard the question I asked; you agree with Dr Palmer’s answers?
A. Yes.

(Witness retired).

WILLIAM McILRATH MEEKE:
sworn, examined, deposed:

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a legally qualified medical practitioner practising at Rockdale. At about 7-50 pm on the 28th May I went to the shop known as Maloney’s shop, at Arncliffe. I there saw the dead body of a child. I examined it.

    (Accused, on the advice of his counsel admitted the body the doctor examined to be the body of Percival Fred Carratt.).

I made an external examination of the body. The toes were untouched. The face was pale. There was a slight abrasion on the left upper eyelid. There was a little sore on the nose partly healed. That was obviously a sore some days old. On each side of the face near the angle of the jaw,

Dr Sheldon x xx. WMcI Meeke

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-5-

[75]

there were two very faint bruises or contusions. They could have been cause by the pressure of fingers. They were very faint. There were a few leaves and fragments of grass on the face, and there was some liquid blood in the mouth. I examined the body all over. There were no broken bones. In the region of the anix anus there were some little faeces to be seen to be seen, but there were no tears or wounds of any descriptions. The trousers were wet with urine in the falk fork. That is a common thing to happen in the throes of death. The fluid I saw there I could not say would be consistent with death by smothering or aphyxia. When I saw the body the feet and hands and head were cold, but the trunk was warm. It was a very cold night. From the warmth of the body I would form the impression that the child had been dead from 2½ to three hours.

(Witness retired).

FRED MARSDEN:
sworn, examined, deposed:

To Crown Prosecutor: I live at 16 Terry Street, Arncliffe. The little child Percival Fred Carrat is my grand son. I was at home on the 28th May last somewhere after 5 – just after 5. My grand son lifed [sic] next door to me. I heard his mother say something to him. Afterwards I saw the little boy go out. I know Maloney’s shop. He was away half an hour and then I got anxious. We sent his little sister to look for him, and she came back and told me something. Then I went to Maloney’s shop first and had some conversation there with Maloney. I then went back home again, and told them he had been there. I searched the neighbourhood then and rang up the police at Rockdale, and then we rang up the hospital to see if there had been any accidents. Then I searched the neighbourhood and then went home again, and my wife said something to me, and I went out again. I found him on a vacant piece of land opposite Maloney’s.

(Plan of locality tendered). (Marked Ex A).

(Witness indicated on the plan Terry Street, Rock [sic] Point Road, Maloney’s shop, vacant piece of land and marked with an x with a blue pencil to indicate the spot on the vacant piece of land where he found the child.)

(Two photographs of locality tendered and marked Ex B and C).

The body was 7 or 8ft from the fence shown in the photograph. When I saw it, it is [sic] was lying flat down between two bushes with the face sideways

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-6-

[76]

on the left side. He was lying on his stomach. His feet were towards the railway. The fence shown in the photograph is the railway fence. When I saw him he was fully dressed in a little ranger suit. He had no boots on. I could not find the boots. He had his little bag on. Those are the clothes he was wearing (produced). He had a bunch of carrots in that bag.

(Clothes and bag tendered and marked Ex D).

I carried him into Maloney’s shop. I then rang up for the doctor and the police. When I found him I did not notice any marks on him. I could not see in the moonlight. When I got over to the shop I noticed blood in his mouth. He had a piece of grass and herb between his lips. There was a mark on his nose. I did not had not seen that mark on his nose before. Dr Meeke arrived and I saw him examine the child. The little boy was dead. He had not moved since I picked him up. So far as I could see he was dead when I picked him up. Constable North afterwards arrived and I took him to the spot when [sic–where] I found the little boy. Constable North looked for his boots and found them about 6 feet away from the body, behind the bushes. Those are his shoes.

(Shoes tendered and marked part of Ex D).

When I picked the little boy up and carried him the body was warm. It was nearly two hours before that I had last seen the child alive. It was just after 5 when he went and it was after 7 when I found him. He was a very healthy child. There was no sickness or heart trouble or anything of that kind.

CROSS EXAMINATION:

Mr McKenzie:

Q. You eventually went and searched for the child and found him where you have pointed out – near the bushes?
A. Yes.

Q. You found him lying on his stomach with his face sideways – the left side?
A. Yes.

Q. Had the child his arm under his face?
A. No. His face was on the ground sideways.

RE EXAMINATION:

Mr Coyle:

Q. On the 31st May, did you point out the spot where you found the child to a Miss Stone?
A. Yes.

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-7-

[77]

AT 2PM.

WILLIAM MICHAEL DOHERTY,
Sworn, examined, deposed:

To Crown Prosecutor: I am the Second Government Analyst. On the 2nd June of this year Sergeant Harrowsmith handed me a child’s jumper. The jumper (part of Ex “D”) is the one. He also handed me a sample of some red oxide. The sample you show me is the one. Looking at the child’s jumper, I noticed on the right sleeve there were red stains and one or two stains on other parts of the jumper. On the right sleeve there were four well-marked stains. They were composed to [sic–of] oxide of iron. I examined them. One of the stains contained .054 of a grain of oxide of iron. The powder is composed of oxide of iron. The stains on the coat and this oxide of iron are similar. They could be described as red oxide. Oxide is in very fine divisions. Anyone working amongst it would be liable to get it all over them. It would stick on the hands and clothing of anyone working amongst it. A person with that on their hands, touching any other body, would be likely to leave a stain on the other person or on the clothing.

(Witness retired)

MARY FAITH STONE,
Sworn, examined, deposed:

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a single girl, living at Wollongong Road, Arncliffe. On the 28th May last I had been to Rockdale, and was returning home. On my way home I came along a street called Marenia St. It is shown on the plan you show me. About twenty minutes past five I was in that street near Rocky Point Road. It was getting a little dark then. I know a Mr Murray. I passed him on that occasion. His wife was with him. They were in Terry Street. They were coming in an opposite direction to me. Marenia Street runs into Terry Street. Then you get into Rocky Point Road. When I got to the corner of Terry St and Rocky Point Road I noticed a man on the corner with a little boy. The corner I refer to is the butcher’s shop. The butcher’s shop is shown on Exhibit “B”, where the word “butcher” is written. I saw them standing here, (indicating). I was going along Terry Street towards Rocky Point Road. I was going over the vacant allotment after that. When I got to the butcher’s shop the man was on the vacant allotment. The little boy was with him. The man was

WM Doherty

MP Stone

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-8-

[78]

walking with his arm around the little boy’s shoulders. I noticed how the little boy was dressed. It was sort of navy blue clothing, and he had a little bag around his shoulders. The jumper he was wearing was similar to the jumper you show me. The little bag he had was like the little bag you show me. I noticed that the man had a stiff leg. I had seen him previously. I knew him by sight. The man I saw is the man over there in the dock. The little boy and the man were on the vacant allotment. I went on to the vacant allotment. By the time I got there the man was well ahead of me and the boy was with him. He was bearing towards the fence of the railway. The fence I refer to is shown on the plan here (indicating). After that I went straight up this way (indicating). At that time the man would be near the fence about the location of the post shown on the photograph. I went near the telegraph pole. There is a [cross out indecipherable] path up there. I stopped a minute or so as I got to the top of the rocks. I had lost sight of the man then. I walked on a bit further. Another man passed me going down. The rocks are show at the top of the photograph, near the house. I could not see the man or the little boy when I was there. After I passed the man I stopped for a few minutes; that is where the other house is. I did not notice the boy and the man come along. I went home then. I thought the child was crying, by its actions. I also noticed that his hair was long like a little girl. When I was at the top I could not see those two and I did not see them again that day. Next day I heard something. The man who was with the little boy had on a light suit, with a grey cap. I refer to the accused. Next day, I heard something. I went to see Mr McDonald in the butcher’s shop and then Sergeant Harrowsmith, also Constable Langworthy. I went to the Morgue with Sergeant Harrowsmith. I was shown a little child who was dead. That is the same child that I had seen before. I was shown some clothing that you have shown me here. It is the same clothing. Afterwards I went with Mr Marsden to the spot where I had seen the man and the child. He pointed out a spot where he had found the little boy. I pointed out where I had last stood on the top of the rise.

    I saw someone measure a certain distance to where I last saw the man and the little boy. I don’t know who that was. I don’t remember

SFS

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-9-

[79]

how long it took him to step that distance. I know he walked a distance, to the spot where I last stood from where the child was found. After I left the Morgue I was with Constable Langworthy in a car. I was driven round a bit in the car. I saw someone. I saw the man whom I had previously seen with the little boy and I pointed him out to Constable Langworthy. The man I pointed out is the man over there (pointing to the dock). He was walking along at the time. When I pointed him out Constable Langworthy got out of the car, and the man got in the car then. The man that got in the car is the accused. As he was coming up to the car I noticed that he was walking as if he had a stiff leg.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. Are you at business? – Yes.

Q. You were coming home from business? – Yes.

Q. Is it some distance away? – Yes, in Rockdale.

Q. What time did you leave there? – About 5 o’clock.

Q. How did you come there? – Walked.

Q. You say you saw near the butcher’s shop a man and a child? – Yes.

Q. What time? – About 20 past five.

Q. I suppose it was becoming dark? – Yes.

Q. It was early winter – May. It was getting fairly dark when you got away from the lights of the butcher’s shop? – Yes.

Q. You were going home across the vacant allotment and you saw the man and the child also going across the allotment? – Yes.

Q. You said you thought the child was crying? – Yes.

Q. You were with Constable Langworthy and you pointed out the accused to Langworth [sic]? – Yes.

(Witness retired)

JOSEPH HENRY MURRAY.
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a fettler in the tramways and I live at Terry Street, Arncliffe. On the 28th May last I was on my way home with my wife. I know the vacant piece of land off Rocky Point Road. This is the land (indicated on Exhibit “B”). I know Wardell Road. You would have to go across Rocky Point Road to get into Terry St.

MF Stone X & XX

JH Murray X

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-10-

[80]

Q. How did you approach Rocky Point Road in relation to the vacant piece of land? – I came across this track (indicating) across Wardell Street and I crossed opposite Maloney’s shop.

    When I got near Maloney’s shop I noticed a little Percy Carratt standing on the corner. I knew him. He was dressed in dark clothes. He had a little school bag over his shoulder. The clothes that you show me are the kind of clothes. The school bag you show me is similar. I spoke to him on that occasion. He did not answer me. Then I went on my way home. I passed Miss Stone in Terry Street. I did not notice anyone else, no one with a little boy. It was about a minute after I saw the boy that I passed Miss Stone. Miss Stone was coming towards me, towards the Rocky Point Road. I had turned into Terry Street when I saw her. Then I saw the little boy he was standing still. It would be about 25 or half past five. I know where the little boy lived. It was three doors from our place. He would have to be going the way I was going to get to Terry Street.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. You were crossing the vacant allotment. That is a recreation reserve? – Yes.

Q. You saw Miss Stone? – Yes.

Q. Was she alone? – With her father.

Q. It was about 5.25 or 5.30? – Yes.

Q. It was about dusk at the time? – Yes.

(Witness retired)

MICHAEL JAMES MALONEY,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a green-grocer, living at 212 Rocky Point Road, Arncliffe. That is near McDonald’s shop, two doors away. I knew the little boy, Percy Carratt. On the 28th May last I was in my shop. Some time in the afternoon I saw the little boy. He came into the shop somewhere near five o’clock, perhaps a little afterwards. I did not take much notice at the time. He had a bag on his shoulder, it was a bag similar to the one you now show me. He purchased a bunch of carrots. I gave him the carrots and threepence change. I wrapped the threepence in a piece of newspaper and handed it to him. The threepence and the

JH Murray X & XX

MJ Maloney X

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-11-

[81]

the piece of paper you show me are the same as I handed him, as far as I can say.

    (Threepenny piece and newspaper wrapping tendered and marked Ex “E”) I did not notice any marks on his face at all. Later on that night Mr Marsden brought someone to my place. He brought the little boy. He was pronounced dead in my house. That was the little boy who had been in to get the carrots. Then when he was on the bed I noticed blood about his lips and also some grass.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. You did not see any marks on his face? Did you notice a mark on his nose, what appeared to be a sore, healing up? – No.

(Witness retired)

JAMES ERNEST BRENNAN,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor. I am a partner in the firm of F & B Applied Art Company. I live at Burger Street, Kogarah. I know the accused. I knew him under the name of Lovett. He was in my employ on the 28th May. He used a certain material for the polishing of red steps. He was using cemented red oxide. Red Oxide is a pretty messy thing to deal with. It gets into your clothes easily. It is very fine. On the 1st June I handed a sample of red oxide to Sergeant Harrowsmith. It was one of my own samples of red oxide. It was the kind of oxide that the accused was working with that day. The sample you show to me is the sample I handed over on that occasion. On that day, the 28th May, Lovett knocked off at 5 o’clock. By the time he left it would be a quarter or ten past five. He was lame on that occasion. It would take about ten minutes to get to Terry Street from my factory. When working with Oxide it would be wet. He would change his clothes, so that it would be only on his hands if any at all.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. You have red oxide there? – Yes.

Q. You use that for making up what? – It is used in the manufacture of steps.

Q. Red Oxide is of a poisonous nature? – I should say so.

MJ Maloney JH Murray XX

JE Brennan X & XX                                                                    

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-12-

[82]

Q. When it is wet does it give off any fumes? – No.

Q. This boy was employed by you? – For about seven weeks.

Q. Did you find him, as far as you saw, a decent lad? – Yes, a very well-behaved boy.

Q. He is not a very intelligent boy? – Certainly not an intelligent boy.

Q. So far as your observation goes he was always a decent and well-behaved lad? – Yes.

RE EXAMINATION

Crown Prosecutor.

Q. His intelligence was sufficient to enable him to do the job he had? – Yes, if it was explained to him.

Q. He would carry it out? – Yes.

Q. How long was he in your employ? – Seven weeks.

(Witness retired)

EDWARD HARRY CARRAT,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor. I am a bootmaker, living at 18 Terry Street, Arncliffe. The little boy Percival Fred Carratt was my son. I saw him on the 28th May last. He was in good health at that time. He was a fairly healthy little boy. He had no complaints, he was just the ordinary child. I was away all that day. When I returned I was told something. My little boy was missing. I know Maloney’s green-grocer’s shop. My house is between 200 and 250 yards from Maloney’s. I started looking for the lad and I reported him missing to the Police. I afterwards saw his dead body at the morgue. The little boy was five years and ten months old.

(Witness retired)

CHARLES FREDERICK NORTH,
Sworn, examined, deposed:

To Crown Prosecutor. I am a Constable of Police stationed at Arncliffe. On the 28th May last at 6.45 pm I received a message in connection with the little boy, Percival Fred Carratt. Afterwards, at about 09.10 pm, I went to Maloney’s shop in Arncliffe and I saw a little boy dead on the bed. I saw Marsden there, the grandfather of the boy. Doctor Meeke informed me that the boy was dead. I took Marsden to a vacant allotment and Marsden pointed out where he had found the body. The spot,

JE Brennan Re-X

EH Carratt X CF North X

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-13-

[83]

where he found the body is in the bushed shown in the photograph here (indicating). It was about 6 foot from the fence. I found a pair of shoes a few feet away from the spot where the body was said to have been lying. They were laced as they are now and were side by side. They were about two or three feet away from where the body was said to have been found.

(Witness retired)

EDWIN THOMAS LANGWORTHY,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a Constable of Police stationed at Kogarah. I handled this case in conjunction with Sergt Harrowsmith. I heard Sergeant Harrowsmith have an interview with Miss Stone. Afterwards I saw him speaking to the accused. I was present when a statement was taken. I witnessed it. The statement you show to me is the one referred to.

    (Statement m.f.i “2")

I went did not go with Miss Stone to the morgue, neither did I come back with her. I was in a car with her, about 5.15 pm on the 29th May. We were driving up and down various streets. At one stage she said something and pointed to a man who was walking along a street. The accused was the man she pointed out. I was driving the car. I did not notice the accused before she pointed him out. Sergeant Harrowsmith and I had an interview with her before this. She had told me certain things.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. You witnessed that statement? – Yes.

Q. And you were present at the time the accused made it? – Yes.

Q. When did you first see the accused? – When Miss Stone pointed to him from the car.

Q. You had charge of the car? – Yes.

Q. Miss Stone was with you in the car? – Yes.

Q. And she pointed the accused out? – Yes.

Q. And subsequently the accused was in the car? –Yes.

Q. Later the Police questioned him and he made that statement? –Yes.

Q. At that time what state did he appear to be in? – Quite normal.

(Witness retired)

ET Langworth X & XX

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-14-

[84]

ALBERT HENRY HARROWSMITH,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Crown Prosecutor: I am a Sergeant of Police stationed at Kogarah. At about 9 pm on the 28th May I went to Maloney’s shop in Rocky Pt Road, Arncliffe, and saw the dead body of the little boy, Percy Fred Carratt. He was fully clothed, excepting hat and shoes. He had a small bag suspended over his left shoulder. The shoes were afterwards handed to me. The bag and clothes that you show to me are similar to those he was wearing at the time. The bag contained carrots wrapped in paper. There was also a three-penny piece wrapped in paper in his coat pocket. The threepenny piece and paper were in the same condition as now. I rang up for Dr Meeke and he came along. I removed the clothing from the body. I noticed that the little boy’s right sleeve had some red marks on it, and the front portion of his pants was wet. There was a small portion of excreta on the seat of the pants. On the 29th May, with Constable Langworthy, I saw Miss Stone at McDonald’s butchers shop. She told me something and gave me a description of someone. Afterwards at about 2 pm, I took her to the morgue. I showed her the body and the clothing of Percy Carratt. She said something. About 5.40 pm I saw Constable Langworthy and Detectives Matthews and Keogh. in Langworthy and Miss Stone were in the car. I entered the car and sat alongside the accused. We drove to Rocky Point Road. After being in the car for about a quarter of an hour the accused said “What are they running me about like this for?” I said “We are waiting for Inspector Leary.” Sometime afterwards he said “Are they going to take me to Rockdale?” I said “I don’t know yet.” About 7 pm Inspector Leary arrived. Inspector Leary said to the accused – “My name is Leary; I belong to the Police; what is your name?” the accused said “My name is Lovett.”: Leary said “We are making inquiries about a little boy who was found dead in a paddock last night and we have stopped you for that reason. We have been informed that you were seen crossing the paddock with a boy answering the description of a boy found dead on that ground.” Lovett said “I met a little boy on the road; he ran across and collided with me and I saved him from falling.” He went on to say “I walked across the paddock with him and left him on top of the rocks.” He said that the little boy had long fair hair, and a

AH Harrowsmith X

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-15-

[85]

satchel over his shoulder.” Leary said– “Show me where you met the boy and the direction you afterwards took and where you left him.” The accused said “Yes, come along with me and I will show you”. He took us along the Rocky Point Road to the corner of the Paddock opposite McDonald’s butcher shop and stood on the eastern side of the footpath and said “This is where I was standing when he collided with me.” (Witness indicated the spot on the photograph). We then walked across the paddock. He took xx us over the rise into Wardell Street, and, standing at a spot about 8 yards from the fence, he said “This is where I left him, looking over the railway line”. That was a spot close to the line. Leary said “Did you bid the little boy Good-bye when you left him?” He said “No, I left him looking over the railway line.” Leary said “We will now show you where we understand the body was found.” We then went to some bushes at the foot of the rise. The accused said “I know nothing about it; I left him on the top of the rocks.” The Inspector then said “Supposing we step out the distance between here and the spot you say you left the boy.” The accused said “All right.” The Inspector then said “I made it 32 paces.” The accused said “That is right – what [sic–that] is what I make it.” Leary said “Do you think you would know the boy again if you saw him?” Lovett said “Yes.” The Inspector then said “We will go to the morgue and you will be shown the body.” We then went to the Morgue. I showed the accused the clothing produced. I said “This is the navy blue shirt the boy was wearing”. He said “That is like the shirt, and the bag.” He said “That is the bag”. Then I showed him the pants. He said “Those are the pants; they had stripes in them.” I showed him the shoes and stockings. He said “They are like the same.” I said “Are you prepared to see the body of the child found on the spot pointed out?” He said “Yes.” I then pointed out the body of Percival Fred Carratt in the morgue. He glanced at it and turned away and said “That is the little boy I walked across the paddock with; that is the chap.” I said “Did you notice those marks on the boy’s face?” He said “No, I did not notice any marks.” I said “There are two marks, one on the eye-lid and one on the nose.” He said “I did not see them.” I said “Will you agree to see the body again?” He

AH Harrowsmith X

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-16-

[86]

said “Yes”. Then we returned and I pointed out the marks to him. He said “I could not say whether those marks were on his face when I saw him last.” I then took him to the Central Police Station. I said “You will be charged with the murder of that child; do you wish to have the statements you have given to us taken down in writing; you are not obliged to do so and it is my duty to warn you that what ever you do say may be used in evidence against you at your trial.” He said “I will make a statement if you will write it down for me.” I then wrote down the statement. The statement you show to me is the one I wrote on that occasion. I said “Will you read it over?” He said “Yes,” and he read it over and signed it.

Q. A few minutes afterwards, after you had written the first part of the statement and it was signed, what was he doing? – He was sitting on the couch with his head bowed in his hands.

Q. Had you said anything after he wrote the first statement? – Not until he said “I have not told you all the truth in that statement; I now want to tell you the truth and get it all off my mind; I did not leave the little boy at the rocks as I told you. I left him in the bushes pointed out by Mr Leary.” I said “Do you wish me to take down another statement?” He said “Yes.” I said “You remember that you have already been cautioned about saying anything.” He said “I want to get it all off my mind.” He then made the second statement. He said he would like to read it himself. He read it over. He got to the sentence “I kept saying to him ‘You need not cry all the time’ ” and he said “The words ‘all the time’ should be crossed out.” He read the statement through, initialled the alteration, and signed it. The one you shown me is the one he signed.

    (Statement read, tendered, and marked Exhibit “F”)

On the 1st June I saw Mr Brennan, of the firm of F & B Applied Art Company. He handed me a sample of red oxide. The sama sample you show me is the one. I took that, together with the clothes of the little boy, to Mr Doherty, the analyst. I took the navy blue shirt, and I left it with the sample of oxide, with Mr Doherty.

    (Sample of oxide tendered and marked Exhibit “G”)

AH Harrowsmith X

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-17-

[87]

The coat when handed to Doherty was in the same condition as it was when taken off the little child.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. You were present when the accused made the statement? – Yes.

Q. You were there the whole time? –Yes, I took both statements.

Q. Who else was present at the time? – Constable Langworthy was present and Sergeant Leonard.

Q. The accused was sitting down after making the first statement? – Yes.

Q. And had his hand over his eyes? – His elbows were resting on his knees and his eyes were covered by his hand.

Q. You say the statement was perfectly voluntary? –Yes.

Q. It was not at all suggested by you? – No.

Q. Did you not ask certain questions? – Did he use those terms you have mentioned entirely on his own? – Yes.

Q. The word “connection” and so on? –Yes, those are his own words. I did not suggest them to him.

(Witness retired)

CROWN CASE CLOSED

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

    The Accused made the following statement from the dock:–

    I did not intend to kill the child. I did not intend to commit rape.

EDITH ALICE LOVETT,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Mr McKenzie. I am a married woman. The accused is my son. My family came out from England some time last year, August, the 8th. We lived at a place called Watford in Hertfordshire, in England. I had a brother. He was at some time in the army in South Africa. Subsequently he died in a mental hospital in England. As far as I know it was the result of some fall or injury, or sunstroke. I have had some mental

AH Harrowsmith XX 

Statement by accused.
EA Lovett X                                                                    

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-18-

[88]

trouble myself, once. It was not twice, in England. It was once. I was in the infirmary. I had meningitis and mental trouble. The accused has been living with me at Arncliffe. He is a very quiet boy, always passionately fond of children. He was never out of a night. He was fond of children, and he played with them. He slept with a little boy one night – a boy named Cassidy. Mrs Cassidy left her boy in our house and the boy slept with the accused that night. That would be in May of this year. She was working at the Diggers’ Ball and she left him in my care. I would say that the accused is not so bright a boy as he should be for his age.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Crown Prosecutor.

Q. He is your son? –Yes.

Q. And his name is Puddifoot? –Yes.

Q. That was your maiden name? –Yes.

(Witness retired)

ALICE CASSIDY,
Sworn, examined, deposed:–

To Mr McKenzie. I am a married woman, living at Arncliffe. I should say I ‘was’ living there. I am now living in King Street, Newtown. I know the accused. I know his mother. I have a little boy. He is here today. He is 8 years of age. In my opinion the accused was always very kind to children whenever in their company. I think he is a silly sort of a boy. He took my little boy out to some fireworks on Empire night. He brought him back on his shoulder, quite safe. On one occasion I was away and I sent my little boy to Mrs Lovett’s place. She minded him one night while I was at work. I questioned my little boy and I am satisfied that there was no interference with my boy, nothing at all like that. I never heard of it. He always played with children and seemed very fond of them. He was always playing with the children and seemed very fond of them. He was always playing with the children, or carrying them on his shoulder. I do not think he is a very bright boy. He is a silly sort of a boy. You would not take much notice of him.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Crown Prosecutor.

Q. How many children have you? – Three. The eldest is 13. The others are aged 11 and 8.

Q. You did not send the little girl to stop there? –Yes.

EA Lovett XX

Alice Cassidy X & XX 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-19-

[89]

Q. How long ago? – About a fortnight before the tragedy.

Q. How long have you known him? – Ever since coming to Australia; they came to our place.

Q. Friends of yours? – No.

Q. He had a job? – Yes.

Q. You have never noticed anything dangerous to your children? –No, he is just a harmless sort of a boy.

(Witness retired)

(On the suggestion of Mr McKenzie the Crown Prosecutor admitted that there was nothing previously against the accused)

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE CLOSED

CASE IN REPLY

ROBERT LEE BROWN,
Sworn, examined, deposed:--

To Crown Prosecutor. I am the Government Medical Officer. Part of my duty consists of seeing people in the Penitentiary. I have had the accused under observation for the last three months, another Doctor and myself. He has been subjected to various tests, all recognised tests for mentality. As regards his mentality I think I ought to say that he was also seen by the lady doctor. She is studying the mental condition of degenerates. We spent the whole of one afternoon together and put him through a series of tests of all description. He came through them with satisfaction to us both; that he was quite up to normal mentality standard of an ordinary boy of his age.
Q. If it is put to you that a big strong-looking man like that desired to know carnally a child about 5 years of age, would you say that he was not normal; or, beyond that, would you say that you saw anything in the tests to show that he was not possessed of normal mind? – Nothing at all. He was perfectly normal in every other aspect.

CROSS EXAMINATION

Mr McKenzie.

Q. You examined the accused with Hodgkinson and Dr Cootey? –Yes.

Q. With a youth of that age the effect of sexual passion is very

Dr Lee Brown X & XX

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-20-

[90]

strong? — It is just beginning, asserting itself.

Q. It is certainly very strong at that age? – Yes.

Q. If the passions were roused at the time, a person would not be normal? – I don’t think that because the passions are roused beyond the ordinary that he is not mentally normal. I would not say that.

Q. Did you study this youth? You questioned him? – We questioned him on all points that are recognised regarding the mental stability of a boy, his mental capacity, and so on.

Q. Anyway sexually? – About that also.

Q. I suppose sexual actions would have some strong effect – anything induced by sexual passion would affect the mind? – It would influence one’s actions.

Q. Did you go into the question of asking the accused or satisfying yourself in any way whether he had been addicted at all to self-abuse? – He told me he had occasionally.

Q. It would have an effect on his mental powers? – To excess it would. It does not lower the mentality ordinarily.

(Witness retired)

CASE IN REPLY CLOSED

At 3.33 pm Mr McKenzie addressed the jury.

At 4.6 pm The Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[69]

Copy

NEW SOUTH WALES.
PREMIER’S DEPARTMENT.

DP/MM

4015/8.

Sydney. 30th October 1923.
B.23/1541.

Dear Sir,

    I desire to invite your attention to the case of one, Leonard Henry Puddifoot, who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on the 11th September, 1923, of manslaughter, and sentenced to three years hard labor, which sentence he is now serving.

    The information in the possession of my Government shows that the prisoner was born at Marylebone, London, and left England for Australia as a nominated immigrant about June 1922. It therefore seems clear that Puddifoot comes within the provisions of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-20, and my Government will be glad if you will consider the question of putting the law in motion with a view to arrangements being made, if thought necessary, to deport Puddifoot from the Commonwealth.

    Copy of the transcript of evidence given at the trial and of the Judge’s report, are herewith.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] George W Fuller.
Premier.

The Honourable
  The Acting Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia,
     Melbourne.

————

The Secretary,
  Dept of Home and Territories.
     Referred for favor of consideration and advice. Copy has also been sent to Commonwealth Immigration Office.

[Signed] P[ercy] E[dgar] Deane
Secretary,
Prime Minister’s Dept.
Nov 7 - 1923

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[68]

ELB.

23/27286
14th November, 1923.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

     Will you kindly verify the arrival in Australia from England within the last six months of Leonard Henry Puddifoot who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on the 11th September, 1923, of manslaughter and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

[Signed] F[rederick] J[ohn] Quinlan
for Secretary.                                                                   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[67]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

C’23/9936.

Customs House, Sydney
23rd November, 1923.

H&T ‘23/27286.

MEMORANDUM.

    With reference to his memorandum of the 14th November, the Secretary is informed that LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT arrived at this Port, by the s.s. “EURIPIDES” on the 6th August, 1922.

    His name, however, appears on the vessel’s passenger list as LEONARD LOVETT, aged 17 years, one of a family of six persons, who were brought out as assisted immigrants, by the New South Wales State Government.

    PUDDIFOOT is an illegitimate, born prior to his mother’s marriage to her present husband, James Lovett, and, consequently, he bears her maiden name.

[Signed] H Duncan Brown
Acting Collector of Customs,
NSW

The Secretary,
  Home and Territories Department,
     Melbourne.                                                       

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[66]

(Draft Letter to the Premier of
New South Wales).

    With reference to your Minute of the 7th November, No 401/5/6, relative to the question of deporting back to England one Leonard Henry Puddifoot, an assisted immigrant who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on the 11th September, 1923, of manslaughter, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour, I desire to inform you that before deciding whether action should be taken under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1920, my colleague, the Minister for Home and Territories, will be glad to learn if it is intended that Puddifoot shall serve his sentence, and if so the approximate date on which, with remissions (if any), he is likely to be discharged.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[65]

ELB.

23/28711
5th December, 1923.

The Secretary,
  Prime Minister’s Department.

    With reference to your Minute of the 7th November, No. 401/5/6, I am directed to request that you will kindly arrange for a letter to be sent to the Premier of New South Wales in terms of the attached draft.

[Signed] A. R. PETERS
for Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[64]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Regd. No. 401/5/8.

Prime Minister’s Department.
Melbourne.
Dec 3, 1923

MEMORANDUM to The Secretary,
    Dept of Home and Territories.

    A letter addressed by the Premier of New South Wales to the Prime Minister, dated 30th October No. B.23/1541 on the subject mentioned below, was sent to your Department on the 7th November 1923 but, up to the present, no reply has been received to the same in this office. Will you be good enough to expedite a reply in the matter.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.

SUBJECT:—Leonard Henry Puddifoot – question of deportation.

————

See memo to P.M. Dept of 5-12-23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[63]

PRIME MINISTER.

WT/MEL

401/5/8
Melbourne, Dec 8 1923

Dear Sir,

    With reference to your letter of the 7th November, No. 401/5/8, relative to the question of deporting back to England one Leonard Henry Puddifoot, an assisted immigrant, who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on the 11th September, 1923, of manslaughter, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour, I desire to inform you that before deciding whether action should be taken under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1920, my Colleague, the Minister for Home and Territories, will be glad to learn whether it is intended that Puddifoot shall serve his sentence, and, if so, the approximate date on which, with remissions (if any), he is likely to be discharged.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] L. C. Atkinson
for Acting Prime Minister.

The Honourable
     The Premier of New South Wales,
       Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[62]

PRIME MINISTER.

401/5/8.

WT/MM

The Secretary,
  Dept of Home and Territories.

    Referred in connection with you memorandum of 5th December 1923. No.23/28711.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
Dec 8 1923

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[61]

PREMIER’S OFFICE.

Tg/J
DUPLICATE.

SYDNEY.
4th January, 1924.
B.23/1541

Dear Sir,

    In reply to your letter of the 8th December, No 401/5/8, respecting the question of deporting Leonard Henry Puddifoot back to England, I have to advise you that it is intended that this prisoner, if not deported, should serve his sentence. Subject to industry and good conduct, however, he will be entitled to receive a remission of nine months of such sentence and consequently be due for discharge on 10th December, 1925.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] George W Fuller

The Honorable
The Acting Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Melbourne.

————
Premier.

The Secretary,
  Department of Home and Territories.

    Referred in connection with your memorandum 23/28711 of 5/12/23.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary,
Prime Minister’s Department.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[60]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Regd No722/1/7.

Prime Minister’s Department.
Melbourne.

MEMORANDUM to The Secretary,
  Dept of Home and Territories.

    A letter addressed by The Premier of New South Wales to the Prime Minister, dated 4th January No. B.23/1541 on the subject mentioned below, was sent to your Department on the 8th January, but, up to the present, no reply has been received to the same in this office. Will you be good enough to expedite a reply in the matter.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.

SUBJECT:—Deportation of Leonard Henry Puddifoot back to England.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[59]

24/526

ELB.
1st February, 1924.

The Secretary,
  Prime Minister’s Department.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 1st December, No./722/1/7, I am directed to request that you will kindly arrange for a letter to be sent to the Premier of Queensland in the following terms:

    “With reference to your letter of the 4th January, relative to the question of deporting Leonard Henry Puddifoot back to England, I am requested by my colleague, the Minister for Home and Territories, to inform you that it is proposed to defer this matter pending the amendment of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1920.

    “It is observed that Puddifoot is not due for discharge till the 10th December 1925 and that it is intended that, if he is not deported, he shall serve his sentence”.

[Signed] F.J. Quinlan
for Secretary

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[58]

PRIME MINISTER.

TC/AC

722/1/8

Melbourne.
6 Feb 1924

Dear Sir,

    With reference to your letter of the 4th January, relative to the question of deporting Leonard Henry Puddifoot back to England, I am requested by my colleague, the Minister for Home and Territories, to inform you that it is proposed to defer this matter pending the amendment of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1920.

    It is observed that Puddifoot is not due for discharge till the 10th December 1925, and that it is intended that, if he is not deported, he shall serve his sentence.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] Littleton E Groom
for Acting Prime Minister.

The Honorable
  the Premier of New South Wales,
     Brisbane.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[57]

PRIME MINISTER.

TC/AC

7212/1/8

The Secretary,
    Department of Home and Territories.
    Referred in connection with your memorandum of 1st February. No 24/526.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
5 Feb 1924

————

Due for discharge 10/12/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[56]

ELB.
24/526

3rd November, 1924.

The Secretary,
  Prime Minister’s Department.

    With reference to your file No.722/1/8, I am directed to request that you will kindly arrange for a letter to be sent to the Premier of New South Wales in the following terms:

    “With reference to previous correspondence, your B.23/1541, relative to Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, aged 18 years, who is serving a sentence for manslaughter, I desire to inform you, at the instance of my colleague the Minister for Home and Territories, that further consideration has been given to the question of deporting this youth back to England under the provisions of Section 8A of the Immigration Act as recently amended.

    “Before the matter is finally dealt with, however, it is desired that you will kindly arrange for enquiries to be made and information furnished as to–
       (a) Puddifoot’s behaviour in gaol;
       (b) the occupation, financial standing and address of his father, James Lovett, and whether the latter and his wife and other members of the family bear a good reputation;
       (c) whether the father is prepared to look after his son if the latter is allowed to remain here subject to good behaviour”.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[55]

PRIME MINISTER.

TC/FX.

722/1/54.

Melbourne.
Nov 10 1924

Dear Sir,

    With reference to previous correspondence (your B.23/1541) relative to Leonard Henry Puddifoot, aged 18 years, who is serving a sentence for manslaughter, I desire to inform you, at the instance of my colleague, the Minister for Home and Territories, that further consideration has been given to the question of deporting this youth back to England under the provision of Section 8A of the Immigration Act as recently amended.

    Before the matter is finally dealt with, however, it is desired that you will kindly arrange for enquiries to be mad and information furnished as to–
     (a) Puddifoot’s behaviour in gaol;
     (b) the occupation, financial standing and address of his father, James Lovett, and whether the latter and his wife and other members of the family bear a good reputation;
     (c) whether the father is prepared to look after his son if the latter is allowed to remain here subject to good behaviour.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] L. C. Atkinson
for Prime Minister.

The Honorable
  the Premier of New South Wales,
     Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[54]

PRIME MINISTER.

TC/FK

7212/1/54.

The Secretary,
  Department of Home and Territories.

    Referred in connection with your memorandum of 3/11/24, No. 24/526.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
10 Nov 1924

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[53]

PREMIER’S OFFICE.

F/S
Duplicate. 

Sydney.
27th January, 1925.
A.25/252.

Dear Sir,

    In reply to your letter of 10th November, No 722/1/54, respecting the question of deporting Leonard Henry Puddifoot back to England, I have to inform you that further consideration of this matter has been deferred pending the return of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to this State.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] George W Fuller
Premier.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[52]

HOME AND TERRITORIES DEPARTMENT.

KC

No 23/28711

Memorandum:–

    With reference to the attached memorandum, the Premier of New South Wales was asked whether it was intended that Puddifoot should serve his sentence, and if so the date on which he was likely to be discharged.
    2. The Premier has replied that it is intended that this prisoner, if not deported, shall serve his sentence; also that he will be due for discharge on 10th December 1925.
    3. Presumably the State Authorities are prepared to arrange for his discharge at an earlier date if he is to be deported under the provisions of the Immigration Act.
    4. It is suggested that action be deferred pending the amending of Section 8A of the Immigration Bill, see my minute of 5th December 1923. *

[Initialled] ARC
17/1/24.

* Recommended 18/1, FYG.
    Approved, GFP 19/1/24

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[51]

Copy of letter from prisoner C Puddifoot.

- - - - - -

Reverend Sir,

    It may surprise you to have a letter from such a person as writes this, but you happen to be the only one I could think of to do what I require. You may know who I am when I mention I committed one of the foulest crimes that man could commit. In other words I am another Cain and I will say now I am sorry for what I have done. I realize now how much grief and sorrow I must have been the cause of. It was a terrible thing to do. In reality I loved all those little children and yet I took the life of one. It may seem somewhat ridiculous but it is true. I have sought God’s forgiveness but do not think I deserve to have it. And now, Sir, I would like you to visit the parents of the little fellow whose death I caused and give them what little comfort you can. They may be very sad and downhearted over their loss. Also will you visit my own mother and give a little encouragement, for it has affected her considerably. Would you kindly writ to me and give a little advice and guidance for my spiritual welfare. My full name is Leonard Henry Puddifoot but was known as Lovett before this affair happened. My age is 19 years, 6 months and was born in London. I was confirmed on November 19th., 1919, at the Church of St Michael and All Angels, Watford, Herts, England, of which church a younger brother was a choir boy and I think is now of your Church choir. I think this is all I can state at present, except that I am writing to you although I cannot remember your name, which, of course, does not matter.

I remain,
Yours truly,
[Signed] L Puddifoot.

PS My mother’s address is,
  Mrs J Lovett,
     “Horncastle”,
       Edward Street
          Arncliffe.

(Next to Old St David’s Church).

Mar 17 1925

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[50]

(COPY)

24/14736.

CASE OF PRISONER LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT.
(Goulburn Gaol)
- - - - - -

    Be good enough to furnish a report as to the prisoner’s conduct in gaol. He should be questioned with a view to ascertaining the present address of his father, James Lovett.

[Signed] Wm. Urquhart.
Comptroller-General.
19.11.24.

————

Governor,
  Goulburn Gaol.

    I beg to report that Prisoner was sentenced to 24 hours cells on 20th December 1923, for disorderly conduct and on another occasion was cautioned by me on a similar charge.

    James Lovett, who is a Painter and Decorator by trade is at present residing at “Horncastle”, Edward Street, Arncliffe, near Sydney, and prisoner states that he is his stepfater [sic]

[Signed] Jas Whitlow.
Governor.
21.11.1924.

————

Comptroller General of Prisons.

    Mr Whitlow’s report concerning the prisoner’s conduct in gaol does not go far enough. What is desired is a report as to Puddifoot’s general demeanour in prison, apart from the instances of misconduct mentioned.

[Initialled] W.U.
Comptroller-General.
24.11.24.                                                                     

————

The Governor,
  Goulburn Gaol.

    Puddifoot’s disposition is morose; he is inclined to be sullen and he makes no friendship with other prisoners.

    He in no way exhibits any repentance for his crime, and appears to me to be quite callous about it. Even upon his first reception here, he did not seem to feel any degradation.

    As regards his work, he takes an interest in it; is employed at Carpentry and has made sufficient progress to be put on Knee-hole tables, a higher class of work.

    Generally speaking, he gives no trouble, is obedient and submits willingly to discipline.

    It is somewhat of a coincidence that to-day, the prisoner has written at letter to the Vicar of St David’s Arncliffe, which is attached for perusal. It contains the first expression of sorrow I have seen and it will be observed that the prisoner fully admits the murder.

[Signed] Jas Whitlow.
Governor.
25.11.1924.

The Comptroller General of Prisons.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[49]

COPY.

24-14509.
Police Station, Arncliffe,
6th December, 1924.

Inspector Maze,
  No.12 Division.

Subject:      Occupation and financial standing etc of prisoner Leonard Henry Puddifoot’s step-father, James Lovett, “Horncastle”, Edward Street, Arncliffe.
Reference:   File attached.

- - - - - -

    I beg to report that I interviewed James Lovett, referred to, at the address given.

    Lovett is 43 years of age and follows the occupation of a painter and paperhanger. He is a first class tradesman and is in fairly constant employment, his earnings averaging about £5 per week. He has no other means and owns no property.

    Since coming to Australia nearly three years ago, he has resided at the present address with his brother David Lovett. He is 50 years old, a single man and has been employed for some years as a labourer by the Tramway Permanent Way Department. He owns the cottage in which they reside, valued about £600.

    As far as can be ascertained James Lovett, his wife and family bear good character.

    He has four children, 3 girls and one boy. Ages of girls are 13, 9, and 2 years respectively.

    The boy will be 15 on 29th of this month. He is employed at the plumbing by Mr Dettmann, a builder and contractor at Arncliffe and receives 15/- per week.

    The children are spoken highly of by Mr Montgomerie, the schoolmaster at Arncliffe Public School.

    Mr Lovett states he is not prepared to look after Puddifoot, if the latter is allowed to remain here subject to good behaviour.

    He states he will not accept any responsibility and will not allow Puddifoot to come to his home.

[Signed] Charles F. North.
Const I/C No. 8017.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[48]

DUPLICATE. 

Premier’s Office
Sydney.
10th March, 1925.

A.25/252.

Dear Sir,

    Adverting to your letter of 10th November, 1924, No 722/1/54, relative to Leonard Henry Puddifoot, I enclose herewith copies of reports which have been furnished by the Police and Prisons Departments.

    It should, perhaps, be mentioned that Puddifoot is the illegitimate son of Mrs James Lovett, but this fact was not known to the immigration authorities when he was accepted for a nominated passage.

Yours faithfully,
Premier.

The Right Honourable
  The Prime Minister of
     The Commonwealth of Australia,
          Melbourne.

Mar 17 1925
                                                                 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[47]

PRIME MINISTER.

WT/ EMPHASIS ADDED.

722/1/66 

The Secretary.
  Department of Home & Territories.

    Referred, by direction, in connection with your memorandum of 3rd November, No.24/526.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
Mar 16 1925                                                           

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[46]

L.H.                                                                                                                                     

25/7533
1st April, 1925.

The Secretary,
  Prime Minister’s Department.

    With reference to your minute of the 16th March, No. 722/1/66, I am directed to request that you will kindly arrange for a letter to be sent to the Premier of New South Wales in the following terms:–

    “With reference to your letter of the 10th March, No. A.25/2521, forwarding copies of reports furnished by the Police and Prisons Departments relative to Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, it is observed that the report furnished by the Police authorities at Arncliffe states that Puddifoot’s step-father, Mr James Lovett, is not prepared to look after him in the event of his being permitted to remain in Australia subject to good behaviour.

    “I shall be glad to learn whether it may be assumed that Mrs Lovett endorses her husband’s attitude in this matter; also whether, in the event of her son being sent back to England, she has any relatives there who would be prepared to provide him with a home until he could find employment.”

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[45]

PRIME MINISTER.

CB/DA.

722/1/69.
Melbourne, Apr 8 1925

Dear Sir,

    With reference to your letter of the 16th March, No. A.25/2521, forwarding copies of reports furnished by the Police and Prisons Departments, relative to Leonard Henry Puddifoot I desire to inform you that it is observed that the report furnished by the Police Authorities at Arncliffe states that Puddifoot’s step-father, Mr James Lovett, is not prepared to look after him in the event of his being permitted to remain in Australia subject to good behaviour.

    In the circumstances, I shall be glad to learn whether it may be assumed that Mrs Lovett endorses her husband’s attitude in this matter; also whether, in the event of her son being sent back to England, she has any relatives there who would be prepared to provide him with a home until he could find employment.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] C. W. C. Marr
for Prime Minister.

The Honorable,
  the Premier of New South Wales,
     Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[44]

PRIME MINISTER.

CB/DA.

722/1/69.

The Secretary,
  Home and Territories Department

    Referred in connection with your memorandum of 1st April, No. 25/7533.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
Apr 3 1925

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[43]

Duplicate. 

A.25/252.
Premier’s Office
Sydney.
21st April, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    With reference to your letter of 3rd April, No. 722/1/69, relative to the question of deporting prisoner Leonard Puddifoot, I desire to inform you that inquiries have been made and that it has been ascertained that Mrs Lovett, prisoner’s mother, endorses her husband’s attitude in this matter, and that, in the event of Puddifoot being returned to England, she has no relatives who would be prepared to provide him with a home until he could obtain employment.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed illegible]
Premier.

The Right Honourable
  The Prime Minister of
     The Commonwealth of Australia,
          Melbourne.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[42]

PRIME MINISTER.

??/DA

25/7583

The Secretary,
Home and Territories Department

    Referred, by direction, in connection with your memorandum of the 1st April, No. 25/7533.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
Apr 28 1925

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[41]

HOME AND TERRITORIES DEPARTMENT.

ELB.

No. 23/26711.

Memorandum:

    In September last a youth named Leonard Henry Puddifoot, aged 17 years, was convicted at Sydney of the manslaughter of a child aged 5 years and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.

    2. The Premier of New South Wales states that he has information that Puddifoot arrived from England recently and he asks whether the provisions of Section 8A of the Immigration Act can be applied with a view to deporting him from the Commonwealth.

    3. The Customs report that Leonard Henry Puddifoot arrived in Sydney by the s.s. “Euripides” on the 6th August, 1922. He was one of a family of six assisted immigrants who were brought out to Australia by the New South Wales Government. His father’s name is James Lovett but as he was born prior to his parents’ marriage he bears the mother’s name which is Puddifoot.

    4. Section 8A, Sub-section (1) (a) reads that where the Minister is satisfied that, within three years after the arrival in Australia of a person who was not born in Australia, that person has been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer, he may, by notice in writing, summon the person to appears before a Board to show cause why he should not be deported from the Commonwealth.

    5. The question is submitted as to whether on Puddifoot’s release from gaol at the expiration of his term of imprisonment, action is to be taken under Section 8A.

    6. In connection with this case consideration must be given to the fact that Puddifoot’s parents and the remainder of the family are in NSW. If it is decided to take action under Section 8A there will be considerable expense attached thereto, and I think that in view of the fact that the NSW Government brought Puddifoot to Australia they should be asked whether they are prepared to bear the expense attached to the appointment of a Board and Puddifoot’s subsequent deportation, is such is decided upon.

    7. Copy of evidence in the case in which Puddifoot was convicted of manslaughter is attached.

[Signed] F. E. Ryan
29/11/23.                                                                   

————

29/11/23.

    It is suggested that we first ascertain if it is intended that Puddifoot shall serve his sentence, as the amending Immigration Bill which passed the Senate this year and which will be proceeded with in the House of Representatives when Parliament meets again, will dispense with the necessity of appointing a Board of Inquiry to deal with a case of this kind under Section 8A.

    2. The matter of the cost of deportation might be left till later. I have ascertained that the Commonwealth Immigration authorities granted the assisted passage to Puddifoot. The rest of the family came out under the free passage scheme.

[Initialled] ARB?
5/12/23

[Left-hand margin handwritten notes] App’d GFP 6/12/23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[40]

ELB

No 25/11344.

HOME AND TERRITORIES DEPARTMENT.

Memorandum:

Leonard H PUDDIFOOT, aged 18 years –
Serving sentence for manslaughter of child aged 5 years.
- - - - - -

    With reference to the attached memorandum, the State Premier advised that is was intended that Puddifoot, if not deported, should serve his sentence. He will be due, with ordinary remissions, for discharge on 10.12.25. Presumably the State will be prepared to release him at an earlier date if it is decided to deport him.

    2. This is an awkward case. He is an illegitimate child. His mother resides in New South Wales with her husband and family. She states that the lad has no one in England who would look after him.

    3. The Police Authorities were asked to ascertain if the stepfather, James Lovett, would be prepared to look after Puddifoot if he is allowed to remain in Australia under exemption subject to good behaviour. Lovett, however, states that he will not accept any responsibility and will not allow Puddifoot to come to his home. It is further stated that Mrs Lovett endorses her husband’s attitude.

    4. With regard to Puddifoot’s behaviour in gaol, the Governor of the Goulburn Gaol reported on 25/11/24 that the former was of a morose disposition, and that he in no way exhibited any repentance for his crime; also that generally speaking, he gave no trouble; was obedient, and willingly submitted to discipline; took an interest in carpentry and made progress at such work.

    5. It happened on the same day that the Governor made his report, that Puddifoot wrote a letter to the Vicar of St David’s Church, Arncliffe, expressing great contrition for his crime and asking that the Vicar visit the parents of the child and also his own mother.

    6. As Puddifoot, within three months of his arrival, committed an offence punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or over, he could be deported by Ministerial Order under Section 8A of the amended Immigration Act. It would be necessary, however, in such case for the Department to defray the cost of his passage.

    7. Submitted as to whether action should be taken under Section 8A.

[Initials illegible]
18.5.25.        

————

[Handwritten note] This youth is not likely to prove an ideal citizen but as his only relatives are here, it would in my opinion be inhumane to deport him to England where he would have nobody to take any interest in him. The act that caused the child’s death was Puddifoot placing his hand over the mouth & nostrils to prevent the child crying out. Suffocation took place within a few minutes. In all the circumstances I would recommend that on his release from gaol Puddifoot be allowed to remain on a Certificate of Exemption for 12 months, any extension to be subject to good behaviour.

[Initialled] F.J.T. 20/5

[Left hand margin handwritten note] Mentioned to Cabinet. Arrangements to be made for his deportation.

[Initialled] G.F.P. 22/5/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[39]

ELB.

25/11344
25th May, 1925.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1924.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

To the Master,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides”, has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1924, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of deportation I do further order that he be kept in the custody of the bearer of this order until he has been deported from the Commonwealth.

Minister for Home and Territories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[38]

ELB.

25/11344
25th May, 1925.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1924.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

To the Gaoler,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides”, has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1924, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of so deporting him from the Commonwealth I do authorise you to hand him over to the custody of the person producing this Order.

Minister for Home and Territories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[37]

ELB.

25/11344
25th May, 1925.

The Secretary,
  Prime Minister’s Department.

    With reference to your Minute of the 28th April, No. 722/1/70, I am directed to request that you will kindly arrange for a letter to be sent to the Premier of New South Wales in the following terms:

    “With reference to your letter of the 21st April and previous correspondence, relative to the case of Leonard PUDDIFOOT, I desire to inform you that it has been decided to take action under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1924 with a view to deporting this prisoner back to England.

    “The necessary Deportation Order is being forwarded to the Collector of Customs, Sydney.

    “If your Government is willing that Puddifoot should be deported prior to the date on which he would ordinarily be due for release from prison, will you kindly take the necessary action and arrange for the Collector of Customs to be notified.

    “As it is desirable that Puddifoot should be sent back in a vessel of the same Line as the one by which he arrived here, the Collector will be asked to arrange to obtain a passage by the s.s. “Diogenes” (which is due to leave Sydney towards the end of June) provided arrangements are made by your Government for Puddifoot to be discharged from prison for the purpose of deportation by that vessel”.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
Acting Secretary.

[Initialled] G.F.P.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[36]

ELB.

25/11344
28th May,1925

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW

re L. H. PUDDIFOOT, ex s.s. “Euripides” 6.8.22.

    With reference to your file C.23/9936, I forward herewith Orders for the deportation of the abovenamed immigrant, also copy of a draft of a letter which the Prime Minister has been asked to send to the Premier of New South Wales in connection with this case.

    2. Will you kindly arrange for a berth to be tentatively reserved on the s.s. “Diogenes” in Puddifoot’s favour, so that if the State authorities decide to release him for the purpose of deportation by that vessel, he may be deported accordingly.

    3. The cost of the passage may be charged to this Department. If the shipping company raise any objection to granting the passage, kindly advise me by telegram.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
Acting Secretary.                                                                      

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[35]

WT/FC.       

722/1/71.
Melbourne. May 29 1925

Dear Sir,
    With reference to your letter of the 21st April and previous correspondence, relative to the case of Leonard Puddifoot, I desire to inform you that it has been decided to take action under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1924 with a view to deporting this prisoner back to England.

    The necessary Deportation Order is being forwarded to the Collector of Customs, Sydney.

    If your Government is willing that Puddifoot should be deported prior to the date on which he would ordinarily be due for release from prison, I shall be glad if you will kindly take the necessary action and arrange for the Collector of Customs to be notified.

    As it is desirable that Puddifoot should be send back in a vessel of the same Line as the one by which he arrived here, the Collector will be asked to arrange to obtain a passage by the s.s. “Diogenes” (which is due to leave Sydney towards the end of June) provided arrangements are made by your Government for Puddifoot to be discharged from prison for the purpose of deportation by that vessel.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] L. C. Atkinson
for Prime Minister.

The Honorable
  the Premier of New South Wales,
     Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[34]

PRIME MINISTER.

WT/FC.

722/1/71.

The Secretary.
  Home and Territories Department.

    Referred in connection with your memorandum No.25/11344 of 25th May, 1925.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
May 28 1925

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[33]

Q./MI.

A.25/252.

Duplicate.

Premier’s Office,
Sydney.
11th June, 1925.

 Dear Sir,

    With reference to your communication of the 29th ultimo and previous correspondence, your No 722/1/71, relative to the case of Leonard Puddifoot, I desire to inform you that His Excellency the Governor has approved of Puddifoot being released from custody as soon as arrangements are made by the Commonwealth Authorities to place him on board the S.S. “Diogenes” sailing for England.

    The Collector of Customs, Sydney, has been notified of His Excellency’s decision in the case.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] George W Fuller
Premier.

The Right Honorable
  The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne.

————

    Referred. By direction, in connection with my minute of 29th May, No. 722/1/71 (Your 25/11344)

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
Prime Minister’s Department.
Jun 19 1925

————

[Handwritten] Seen
[Initial illegible]
22/6/25
[Handwritten in left margin] Phoned Customs Wtown [Initial illegible] 23/6.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[32]

30/6

25/11344

The Argus, Thu 25 Jun 1925 ³⁸

DEPORTATION REVOKED.
———◦———
ARNCLIFFE CRIME RECALLED.
————
Sentence to be Served.

    Sydney, Wednesday.—The Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) to-day revoked the order of the former Minister (Mr Ley) for the deportation of Leonard Puddifoot, a young immigrant, who is serving a term of imprisonment for having caused the death of Percival Carratt, aged 5 years, at Arncliffe, Sydney. The sentence was three years’ imprisonment, and Puddifoot has still 15 months to serve. Arrangements had been made for his departure for England by the steamer Diogenes to-day, but Mr McKell has ordered that he must serve the full term of his sentence before he is deported. In September, 1923, Puddifoot, who was aged 19 years, was convicted of having caused the death of the boy.

    The crime aroused intense feeling at the time, and there was strong comment when Puddifoot was let off with a light sentence on a charge of manslaughter. Puddifoot met the child late in the afternoon, when the little boy had been sent on an errand. The body of the boy was found on a vacant piece of ground behind a clump of bushes, and the evidence at the trial showed that death was due to asphyxiation. Puddifoot believed that the child was a girl, and he carried him to a secluded spot. When he took the child in his arms the boy cried, and Puddifoot placed his hand over the boy’s mouth. When he reached the bushes he found that the child was dead, and the body was left there. Puddifoot, who was on his way to the steamer to-day in custody, has been sent back to Long Bay Gaol.

[Indecipherable notes on right]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[31]

LMB

Refce Nos. C’25/5083

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICE
NEW SOUTH WALES

LMB

WRITER:   Boarding Officer, R. W. Wilson.
SUBJECT:  Immigration Act 1901-1924: L.H. PUDDIFOOT re deportation by s.s. “Diogenes,” 24/6/25.

    The Boarding Inspector,

    I was informed at [the Justice Department that on the 3rd June, 1925, the Minister for Justice was requested to approve of the release of PUDDIFOOT for deportation by the s.s. “Diogenes” on the 24th June, 1925.

    2. The decision of the Minister for Justice when received will be immediately communicated to this Office.

[Signed] R. W. Wilson
BOARDING OFFICER
15/6/25.                                                                      

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[30]

Department of the Attorney General and of Justice,
Sydney, 10th June, 1925.
In Reply Please Quote No. 0.1925/6916.

 

Dear Sir,

    Referring to the case of prisoner Leonard Henry Puddifoot for whose deportation an order has been made, I beg to inform you that His Excellency the Governor has approved of Puddifoot being released from custody as soon as arrangements are made by the Commonwealth Authorities to place him on board the S.S. “Diogenes” sailing for England.

Yours faithfully,
[Signature indecipherable]
Under Secretary of Justice.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney.

————

Boarding Inspector 11/6/25
Previous papers attached [Initial illegible] 15/6/25

————

Mr Wilson,
    Please arrange for Puddifoot’s deportation. [Initial illegible] 15/6/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[29]

GRR/RR

DALGETY AND COMPANY LIMITED

SYDNEY 18th June, 1925.

THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
  SYDNEY.

Dear Sir,

    We have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th instant C&E.C’25/5436, with reference to a 3rd class passage to London in the “Diogenes” to sail on the 24/6/25 for Leonard Henry Puddifoot. In reply, as verbally advised, we will place the matter of this man’s carriage before the Commander upon return of the vessel tomorrow afternoon, and we will then immediately advise you as to whether he can be accepted as a passenger.

Yours faithfully,
Dalgety and Company Limited
[Signed illegible]

Boarding Inspector

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[28]

MINISTER OF JUSTICE

SYDNEY NSW.
24th June, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    Referring to the letter addressed to you by this Department on the 10th instant regarding the case of prisoner Leonard Henry Puddifoot, for whose deportation an order has been made, I beg to inform you that it has been decided that Puddifoot is not to be released in order to leave by the S.S. “Diogenes” to-day.

    Arrangements will be made for Puddifoot to leave by a later boat and, pending his departure, he will be detained in prison.

Yours faithfully
[Signed] W. J. McKell
Minister of Justice.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[27-26]

Evening News, Wed 24 Jun 1925 ³⁹

SENSATIONAL MOVE
IN PUDDIFOOT CASE.
————————
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE STEPS IN
————————
REFUSES TO ALLOW DEPORTATION
ORDERED BY PREDECESSOR
————
DRAMATIC ELEVENTH HOUR MOVE
————

The Minister for Justice, Mr WJ McKell, has refused to ratify the action of the previous Minister for Justice, Mr Ley, and allow the deportation of Leonard Henry Puddifoot, the 18-year-old English lad who was on September 12, 1923, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by his Honor, Mr Justice Ferguson, for the manslaughter of Percival Fred Carrat at Arncliffe on May 28, 1923.

    Puddifoot will be kept in gaol until he has served the remainder of his sentence and then deported.

    A sensational message received from our Melbourne correspondent this morning was the firs intimation that anything was moving in regard to Puddifoot.

    Some months ago the “News” political representative asked Mr Ley how Puddifoot was faring, and the Minister replied that certain legislation, which he designed to submit to Parliament, would deal with such cases.

    There was no suggestion that Puddifoot’s term of sentence would be shortened.

PUDDIFOOT WAS PACKED UP READY TO GO

While there was no public announcement in regard to the case, it is now known that a move was made by one member of the Fuller Government to have Puddifoot deported.. That move was made early in the piece; in fact, very shortly after Puddifoot was sent to Goulburn Gaol to serve his sentence.

    The opposition of a colleague prevented his deportation, and he was left in Goulburn Gaol.

    Public interest in the case was revived by a debate in the Legislative Assembly, and members of all sides of the House showed great dissatisfaction at the light sentence imposed..

    Nothing, however could be done to rectify that, so the debate resulted in nothing.

    Some months ago, the question of deportation was revived, and, according to information from Melbourne, the Federal authorities agreed to the request of Mr Ley that he be deported.

    After the elections—in fact early this month—Mr Ley gave his official sanction to the deportation of Puddifoot.

    It was on June 5 or June 6 that Mr Ley signed the necessary papers.

    The Commonwealth authorities were quick to give effect to the State Minister’s desires, and arrangements were made for the deportation on the Diogenes, an Aberdeen liner, which is due to sail at noon to-day.

    So secret were the preparations for the deportation that it is understood Mr McKell did not learn of the position until this week. He had little time to act. The State Governor had already signed the papers empowering the deportation, and only a few hours remained for Mr McKell to take action. This morning he moved.

    The previous order made at the instance of Mr Ley was revoked by the State Governor at the request of Mr McKell, and Puddifoot was thus prevented from boarding the Diogenes.

    At this time Puddifoot was waiting at the Water Police Court for transfer to the ship. He learned early yesterday that he was to be returned to England. His friends here did not care what happened to him, it seemed, and inquiries to-day showed that no friends awaited him in England. Yet he showed joy at the prospect of return.

    He looked well and bright as he waited at the Water Police Court, but shortly after 9 o’clock this morning this joy changed to gloom when the message came through from his authority that he was not to be taken aboard the Diogenes.

CAPTAIN WAITS

    On board the Diogenes the Captain had received instructions early in the week of the character of the passenger he would receive to-day. All arrangements were made for his reception, and only the captain was aware of the record of Puddifoot.

    As the steamer was to sail at noon, the captain expected to have Puddifoot aboard by 11 o’clock; but the unexpected happened, and, instead of Puddifoot, a message came stating that he would not arrive.

    Goulburn gaol will be his residence until the three years’ sentence has been served. Then he will be deported.

    Only one year and nine months have passed since the sentence was passed upon him.

MINISTER’S ACTION

    The action of the Minister for Justice, Mr McKell, will be commended in many quarters, as there was considerable public feeling over the case, and many people in the community take the view that Puddifoot should serve the sentence imposed upon him.

————
THE CRIME

    Puddifoot’s offence was one of the most revolting in the annals of crime in Australia. On the night of Monday, May 28, the five-years-old fair-haired Percival Frederick Carratt was sent by his mother from Terry-street, Arncliffe, where he lived, to make a purchase in a little shop in Rocky Point-road. It was just after dark, and when he reached the corner, about 200 yards from his home, he was accosted by Puddifoot, who, at that time, was employed as a laborer a little distance away.

    The boy had a school bag on his back, and Puddifoot began to talk to him about it, and also about his curls—fair, silken strands, that hung on the little fellow’s neck.

LIKE TO MEET HIM

    He told the boy that he would like to meet him in about five minutes’ time “across the way”. What Puddifoot meant by that was the vacant block of land that ran back to the railway line, and on which young Carrat and other schoolboys were in the habit of playing..

    The little boy went to Moloney’s greengrocer’s shop and bought carrots, which he had been sent to purchase by his mother.

SEEN BY A GIRL

On leaving the shop he was seen by a young lady who knew him well. She spoke to “Percy”, as she called him; but he did not answer her. Thinking this strange, she watched him for a moment, and it was this fact that led to the clearing up of what, when the detectives first took charge of the case, appeared to be a insoluble mystery.

THE SHADOW

    She noticed that the boy kept gazing into the dark on the vacant allotment as if expecting to see someone there. As a matter of fact it transpired that Puddifoot was standing in the shadow of the fence waiting for the boy with whom he had made the appointment. In the light of subsequent evidence it was proved that the little chap crossed Rocky Point-road and went up to Puddifoot, who seized him in his arms.

    Before he could cry out, Puddifoot placed a hand across his mouth and ran with him several hundred yards to a point just near the railway fence, where there was a clump of bushes.

    The little fellow in the meantime in the death agonies of smothering ki8cked one of his shoes off, and when Puddifoot arrived at the bushes he found that the little chap was dead. He threw him into the bushes and made off.

    A couple of hours later Mr F Marsden, grandfather of the lad, with a search party composed of neighbours, discovered the body where Puddifoot had thrown it.

POLICE THEORY

    The police theory was that the boy had been killed in the course of childish play with other schoolmates; but the publication by the “Evening News” that he had been killed by a human stayr [sic–satyr] lead to a new line of inquiry.

    Dr Sheldon’s report that the lad had been asphyxiated supported the theory put forward by the “Evening News,” with the result that detectives from headquarters arrested Puddifoot on his way home from work.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[25]

Refce Nos. C&E C’25/5436                                                 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICE
NEW SOUTH WALES                                                      

TB

WRITER:   Collector of Customs, NSW.
SUBJECT:  Immigration Act 1901-24: Deportation of LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT PUDDIFOOT.

  The Secretary,
    Home and Territories Department. 26 JUN 1925

    Adverting to the Secretary’s memo of 26th May, 1925, regarding the deportation of L.H Puddifoot, I desire to report that arrangements were made with Dalgety & Coy, for Puddifoot to sign on the articles of the s.s. “Diogenes” sailing from this Port to-day.

    At 10.20 this morning, however, Mr McKell, State Minister for Justice, communicated with me by ’phone and stated that it was desired to postpone the deportation of Puddifoot until a later date.

    He said that pending deportation Puddifoot would be kept in gaol.

    I referred Mr McKell to letter from his Department of 10/6/25, intimating that approval had been given to Puddifoot being released from custody for deportation by the “Diogenes” sailing to-day, and asked him if in view of that letter he would kindly confirm his request in writing that the deportation be deferred. This he said he would do, and later on in the day, the attached letter was received from Mr McKell.

    A cutting from to-day’s Sydney “Evening News” on the subject is attached.

[Signed] W.A. Darley
Collector of Customs, NSW
24-6-1925.

[Handwritten note] Fy2
Seen.
GFP
30/6/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[24]

Partic[ulars] of the case are as in memo of 18/5 hereunder with Minister’s endorsement re Cabinet decision

[Initialled] Fy2

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[23]

Q./MH.
Duplicate.

A.25/258.

Premiers’ Office.
Sydney.
26th June, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    With reference to my letter of the 11th instant, your No. 722/1/71, informing you that authority had been given for Puddifoot’s release as soon as arrangements were made to place him on board the S.S. “Diogenes” sailing for England, I have to inform you that His Excellence the Governor has now approved of that authority being revoked.

    My Government is of the opinion, after careful consideration, that Puddifoot should complete his sentence before being deported.

Yours faithfully,
Premier.

The Right Honorable
  The Prime Minister of the
     Commonwealth of Australia,
       Melbourne.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[22]

PRIME MINISTER.

WT/DA.

722/1/73.

Secretary,
  Department of Home Territories.

    Referred, by direction, in connection with your memorandum of the 5th May, No. 25/11344.

[Signed] P. E. Deane
Secretary.
Jul 2 1925

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[21]

RLB.

25/17232.
8th July, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

Re L.H. PUDDIFOOT. 

With reference to your memorandum of the 24th June, C.25/5436, will you kindly ascertain and advise me as to the date on which Puddifoot is due for discharge.

[Signed]  F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[20]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

C’25/5436.

Customs House, Sydney
6th July 1925.

Memorandum.

    Adverting to my minute of 24th June (C&E C’25/5436) relative to the deportation of L.H. Puddifoot, I desire to state that at an interview with me this morning Mr McKell, Minister for Justice, asked if the Department would kindly let him have a letter to the affect that the deportation order signed by the Minister for Home & Territories on 25th May, 1925, would be operative at the date of Puddifoot’s release from prison on the termination of his sentence of three years.

    I should be glad of advice as to whether there is any objection to the Minister for Justice being supplied with the desired letter.

[Signed] W. A. Darley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

————

CC

    I presume there is no objection.
[Signature illegible]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[19]

UE.

25/17232.
14th July, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 6th July, C’25/5436, relative to the question of deportation of L.H. PUDDIFOOT, I desire to inform you that there would be no objection to furnishing the State Minister for Justice with a letter stating that the order signed by the Minister for Home and Territories on the 25th May, 1925, would be operative at the date of Puddifoot’s release from prison on the termination of his sentence of three years.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[18]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

T.B.

C&E C’25/5436.
Customs House, Sydney
16th July, 1925.

Memorandum.

    In reply to the Secretary’s memorandum of the 8th July, 1925, regarding the proposed deportation of L.H. Puddifoot, I desire to state that Mr W. J. McKell, Minister of Justice, NSW, has advised that Puddifoot is due for discharge from gaol on the 13th December next.

[Signed] W. A. Darley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

————

Seen
[Initial illegible]
22/7/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[16 & 17]

Personal

Custom House
Sydney 29.10.1925

Dear Mr Peten

    Referring to the deportation of L.H. Puddifoot your file 25/17232, after hearing a conversation with the Comptroller of Prisons re the amendment of the I A [Immigration Act] 1901-24 we were wondering whether the Deportation Order which was issued by the Minister on the 25/5/25 – prior to the amendment of the Act – would be sufficient to have Puddifoot in custody in the event of it not being commenced – to deport him on the expiration of his sentence.

    I have been in communication with Dalgety agents for the Aberdeen White Star Line by one of which we intend deporting Puddifoot – but as all there vessels are full up the (route ?) they are not in a position at the present time to say when they will be able to provide a passage for him.

    In view of the above the Comptroller of Prisons is inclined to believe that if Puddifoot is not deported on the day he is due for release to further hold it would be necessary for him to be dealt with under

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Section 8C of the I[mmigration] A[ct] 1901-25

    You might look into the matter and give me your advise as to whether the Deportation Order already in existence will suffices on whether it will be necessary to deal with Puddifoot under Section 8C of the I[mmigration] A[ct] 1901-25

Yours sincerely,
[Signed] J. T. Bragg

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[15] 

4th November, 1925.

Dear Mr Bragg,

    I have received your unofficial letter of the 29th October, respecting the case of L.H. Puddifoot.

    I have consulted an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department, and he agrees with me that in view of Section 8C inserted by the amending Act of 1925, it will be advisable to have fresh orders under the Immigration Act 1901-1925 signed by the Minister and forwarded to you.

    The Collector could then request in terms of Section 8C (a) that Puddifoot continue to be detained in prison pending the departure of the first suitable vessel.

    As Puddifoot is not due for discharge until 13th December, I will wait till our Minister returns to Melbourne and send you fresh orders before the end of this month.

With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
[Signature illegible]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[14]

ELB.

25/17232.
3rd December, 1925.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1925.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

To the Gaoler,
     . . . . . . . . .
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides” has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one years or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1925, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of so deporting him from the Commonwealth I do authorise you to hand him over to the custody of the person producing this order.

[Signed] G. F. Pearce
Minister for Home and Territories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[13]

ELB.

25/17232.
3rd December, 1925.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1925.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

To the Master,
     . . . . . . . . .
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides” has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one years or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1925, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of deportation I do further order that he be kept in the custody of the bearer of this Order until he has been deported from the Commonwealth.28 May, 2015

[Signed] G. F. Pearce
Minister for Home and Territories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[12]

ELB.

25/17232.
3rd December, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

    With reference to our memorandum of the 16th July last, No. C.25/6312, relative to the case of L.H. PUDDIFOOT, I forward herewith fresh Orders, issued under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1925, for this person’s deportation from the Commonwealth, and shall be glad if you will substitute them for the orders signed on the 25th May last and forwarded to you with my memorandum of the 26th May.

    2. The fresh orders have been issued in view of the new Section 8C of the Act, so that, if necessary, you may arrange for Puddifoot to be detained in prison or other suitable custody after the date (13th December) on which he is at present due for discharge and pending the departure of the vessel by which he is to be deported.

    3. The Agents of the “Euripides” should be required to provide a passage by the first suitable vessel of the same line. As previously advised, the cost of the passage in this case may be charged to this Department.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[11]

“Argus”

25/17232

The Argus, Fri 4 Dec 1925 ⁴⁰

ITEMS OF INTEREST
———◦———

…
MAN TO BE DEPORTED.

    The New South Wales Ministry is now making arrangements for the deportation of Leonard Puddifoot, who was convicted of the manslaughter of a little boy at Arncliffe. The Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) declined to make any statement on Thursday concerning the proposed deportation, but it was learned from other sources that Puddifoot had been removed from Goulburn gaol and brought to Sydney preparatory to being placed on board an overseas ship. Puddifoot was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, but a portion of the sentence has been remitted, as is customary, for good conduct.

[Initialled] G.F.P.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[10]

ELB.

25/17252.
10th December, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

    Adverting to my memorandum of the 3rd December, relative to the case of L.H. PUDDIFOOT, will you kindly advise me by telegraph of this person’s departure from your port.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan.
For Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[9]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

T.B.

C & E C’25/10228.
Customs House, Sydney
9th December, 1925.

Memorandum.

    In reply to his memorandum of 3rd December, No. 25/17232, the Secretary is advised that L.H. Puddifoot sailed for England on 7th December, 1925, by the s.s. “Diogenes” as a member of the crew.

[Signed] W. A. Darley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

————

(Due London Southampton 26/1/ 25 [sic–1926] 

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department.
     Melbourne.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[8]

UE.

25/17232.
17th December, 1925.

The Official Secretary
  in Great Britain.

(Transmitted through the Prime Minister’s Department).

    A youth named Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT arrived in Sydney by the s.s. “Euripides” on the 6th August, 1922, with his step-father, James Lovett, and members of the latter’s family, all assistant migrants.

    2. In September, 1923, Puddifoot was convicted at Sydney on a charge of manslaughter of a boy aged 5 years, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The case aroused a considerable amount of public feeling at the time.

    3. As the State authorities desired that steps should be taken to deport Puddifoot, and as his step-father refused to have anything further to do with him, an order was issued for his deportation under Section 8A of the Immigration Act.

    4. He was recently released from prison and sailed from Sydney for England on the 7th December, 1925, by the s.s. “Diogenes” as a member of the crew. As he is not likely to do any good in Australia, it is desired that no facilities should be granted for him to return to this country.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
Assistant Secretary.

Sent direct Late til Mr Fremantle.
[Initial illegible]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[7]

UE.

25/17232.
21st December, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 9th December, C25/10228, relative to L.H. Puddifoot, who sailed for England on the 7th December by the s.s. “Diogenes” as a member of the crew, I shall be glad to learn whether it was understood by the Shipping Company that this man was to be discharged in England and not brought back to Australia as a member of the crew.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan.
Assistant Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[6]

“Argus” 15/12/25 ⁴¹

WAS PRISONER DEPORTED?

    Curiosity is expressed in political circles in Sydney regarding the whereabouts of Leonard Puddifoot, who recently completed a term of three years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of an infant child at Arncliffe. It is the general belief that Puddifoot has been deported, but no official statement has so far been made. In the Legislative Assembly yesterday several questions were asked of the Minister for Justice (Mr McKell) concerning Puddifoot, but Mr McKell evaded the questions by asking for notice. Puddifoot is now on the high seas as a member of the crew of a steamer. It is understood that some weeks ago arrangements were made between the State Minister and the Commonwealth to send Puddifoot out of Australia. It is believed that he sailed last week.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[5]

“Age” 15/12/25

25/17232

A MANSLAUGHTER CASE.
———◦———
HAS PRISONER BEEN DEPORTED?

    Sydney.—It was reported on Monday that Leonard Puddifoot, who was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for manslaughter of a boy in the bush sometime ago, has been sent out of Australia. Puddifoot secured a post as stoker on a steamer which left Sydney last week.

    When questioned in the Legislative Assembly about the matter, the Minister of Justice asked for notice of the question.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[4]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

LMB

C & E C’25/10865.
Customs House, Sydney
5th January, 1926.

Memorandum.

    The Secretary is informed in reply to his memorandum of the 21st December, 25/17232, that it is understood by the Agents of the s.s. “Diogenes” that L.H. PUDDIFOOT will be discharged from that vessel in England and not be allowed to return to Australia.

[Signed] W. H. Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[3]

G/B.

25/17232

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Development and Migration Commission

Kurrajong House,
175-177 Collins Street,
Melbourne C.1.

23/1606.

23rd February, 1928.

Memorandum for –
  The Secretary,
     Home and Territories Department.

Leonard Henry Puddifoot (or Lovett).

    With reference to the case of the above-named assisted migrant, who was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment at Sydney on the 11th September, 1923, on a charge of manslaughter, and whose deportation was recommended by the Premier of New South Wales, I shall be glad to learn whether Puddifoot was deported. If so, would you please advise me the name of the vessel by which he sailed and the date of his departure from Australia. This information is desired for record purposes.

[Signed] H. Farrands
Acting Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[2]

BW.

25/17232
Canberra, 6th March, 1928.

The Acting Secretary.
  Development & Migration Commission,
     Melbourne, Vic.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 23rd February, No. 23/1066, relative to Leonard Henry Puddifoot, I desire to inform you that he left the Commonwealth, on his discharge from prison, as a member of the crew of the s.s. “Diogenes” on the 7th December, 1925. (This vessel was due at Southampton on the 26/1/25.) [sic]

    2. It was clearly understood by the Agents of the vessel that Puddifoot was to be discharged in England and not allowed to return to the Commonwealth.

    3. Ministerial Orders were issued for the deportation of the above-named assisted migrant.

[Signature illegible]
Assistant Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

National Archive’s 2nd file – Leonard Henry Puddifoot deportation from Australia, 1923-1926 ⁴²

[35]

The Boarding Inspector

    I have ascertained that LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT, the person referred to in the above memorandum, arrived at this Port from England per s.s. “EURIPIDES” on the 6th August, 1922. His name, however, appears on the passenger list of the vessel as LEONARD LOVETT, aged 17 years, one of a family of six persons, who were brought out as assisted immigrants by the New South Wales State Government.

    2. PUDDIFOOT is an illegitimate, born before his mother’s marriage to James Lovett, and consequently bears her maiden name.

[Signed] Geo B Bradley,
23rd November, 1923.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[34]

ex Euripides
6/8/1922

Jas Edith  Leonard William Joan Iris

Lovett   Lovett   Lovett   Lovett   Lovett   Lovett

48 years   36   17   12   10   7

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[33]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 23/27286

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 14th November, 1923.

The Collector of Customs,
  SYDNEY, NSW.

    Will you kindly verify the arrival in Australia from England within the last six months of Leonard Henry Puddifoot who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on the 11th September, 1923, of manslaughter, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

————

Boarding Inspector 16/11/23
Mr Bradley. For inquiry 17/11/23

————

    I have ascertained that LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT, the person referred to in the above memorandum, arrived at this Port from England per s.s. “EURIPIDES” on the 6th August, 1922. His name, however, appears on the passenger list of the vessel as LEONARD LOVETT, aged 17 years, one of a family of six persons, who were brought out as assisted immigrants by the New South Wales State Government.

    2. PUDDIFOOT is an illegitimate, born before his mother’s marriage to James Lovett, and consequently bears her maiden name.

[Signed] Geo B Bradley.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[32]

C’23/9936.

23rd November, 1923.

H&T ‘23/27286

23rd November, 1923.

MEMORANDUM.
    With reference to his memorandum of the 14th November, the Secretary is informed that LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT arrived at this Port, by the s.s. “EURIPIDES” on the 6th August, 1922.

    His name, however, appears on the vessel’s passenger list as LEONARD LOVETT, aged 17 years, one of a family of six persons, who were brought out as assisted immigrants, by the New South Wales State Government.

    PUDDIFOOT is an illegitimate, born prior to his mother’s marriage to her present husband, James Lovett, and, consequently he bears her maiden name.

[Signed] H Duncan Brown
Acting Collector of Customs,
NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home and Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

————

[Initialled] B Bradley
24/11/23

For Records
30/11/23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[31]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/11344

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 25th May, 1925.
                                                   

  IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1924.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

 

To the Master,
    . . . . . . .
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides”, has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1924, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of deportation I do further order that he be kept in the custody of the bearer of this Order until he has been deported from the Commonwealth.

[Signed] G. F. Pearce
Minister for Home and Territories.                                                          

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[30]

ELB.

25/11344

The Secretary,
  Prime Minister’s Department.

    With reference to your Minute of the 20th April, No. 722/1/70, I am directed to request that you will kindly arrange for a letter to be sent to the Premier of New South Wales in the following terms:

    “With reference to your letter of the 21st April and previous correspondence, relative to the case of Leonard PUDDIFOOT, II desire to inform you that it has been decided to take action under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1924 with a view to deport this prisoner back to England.

    “The necessary Deportation Order is being forwarded to the Collector of Customs, Sydney.

    “If your Government is willing that Puddifoot should be deported prior to the date on which he would ordinarily be due for release from prison, will you kindly take the necessary action and arrange for the Collector of Customs to be notified.

    “As it is desirable that Puddifoot should be sent back in a vessel of the same line as the one by which he arrived here, the Collector will be asked to arrange to obtain a passage by the s.s. “Diogenes” (which is due to leave Sydney towards the end of June) provided arrangements are made by your Government for Puddifoot to be discharged from prison for the purpose of deportation by that vessel”.

Initialled: GFP

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
Acting Secretary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[29]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/11344

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 28th May, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW

re: L. H. PUDDIFOOT, ex s.s. “Euripides” 6.8.22

    With reference to your file C.23/9936, I forward herewith Orders for the deportation of the abovenamed immigrant, also copy of a draft of a letter which the Prime Minister has been asked to sent to the Premier of New South Wales in connection with this case.

    2. Will you kindly arrange for a berth to be tentatively reserved on the s.s. “Diogenes” in Puddifoot’s favour, so that if the State authorities decide to release him for the purpose of deportation by that vessel, he may be deported accordingly.

    3. The cost of the passage may be charged to this Department. If the shipping company raises any objection to granting the passage, kindly advise me by telegram.

————

Boarding Inspector
  1/6/25
     Accommodation available by Diogenes 24th June

Dalgety and Compnay Limited
[Signed] R K Thomas.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[28]

LMB

C’25/5083

Boarding Officer, RW Wilson.

    Immigration Act 1901-24: L. H. PUDDIFOOT re deportation by s.s. “Diogenes,” 24/6/25.

    The Boarding Inspector,
       I was informed at [t]he Justice Department that on the 3rd June, 1925, the Minister for Justice was requested to approve of the release of PUDDIFOOT for deportation by the s.s. “Diogenes” on the 24th June, 1925.

       2. The decision of the Minister for Justice when received will be immediately communicated to this Office.

[Signed] R W Wilson
Boarding Officer.
15/6/25.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[27]

Copy

TB
Department of the Attorney General
and of Justice
Sydney, 10th June, 1925.
Ref. o.1925/6916

Dear Sir

    Referring to the case of prisoner Leonard Henry Puddifoot for whose deportation an order has been made, I beg to inform you that His Excellency the Governor has approved for Puddifoot being released from custody as soon as arrangements are made by the Commonwealth Authorities to place him on board the s.s. “Diogenes” sailing for England.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] B Hassell
Under Secretary of Justice.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[26]

Copy

T.B.

C & EC’25/5436

Dalgety and Company Limited
  Bent Street,

Sydney, 18th June, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
     Sydney.

Dear Sir,

    We have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th instant C & E C’25/5436, with reference to a 3rd class passage to London in the “Diogenes” to sail on the 24/6/25 for Leonard Henry Puddifoot. In reply, as verbally advised, we will place the matter of this man’s carriage before the Commander upon return of the vessel tomorrow afternoon, and we will then immediately advise you as to whether he can be accepted as a passenger.

Yours faithfully,
Dalgety & Coy Pty.
[Signed] K Lorraine.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[25]

C & EC’25/5436

E. M.
16 June, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    In confirmation of the verbal request made by one of my officers on the 2nd June. I should be glad if you would kingly arrange for a 3rd Class passage to London per s.s. “Diogenes”, advertised to sail on24/6/1925 for Leonard Henry Puddifoot, who is being deported by the Commonwealth Government under the Immigration Act 1901-1924.

    The cost of the passage will be defrayed by this Department.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] W H Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Manager,
  Dalgety & Co., Ltd.,
     Sydney.

————

The Boarding Inspector

    Deportation Order against Leonard Henry Puddifoot delivered to Comptroller General of Prisons who has arranged to have Puddifoot at the Water Police Station at 9.30 am on the 24th June 1925. An escort officer in plain clothes will be supplied by Inspector Fewster to take Puddifoot to the Shipping Master’s Office and thence to the s.s. Diogenes

[Signed] R W Wilson
23/6/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[24]

Copy

C & EC’25/5436

T.B.
Minister of Justice
Sydney
24th June, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    Referring to the letter addressed to you by this Department on the 10th instant regarding the case of prisoner Leonard Henry Puddifoot, for whose deportation an order has been made, I beg to inform you that it has been decided that Puddifoot is not to be released in order to leave by the s.s. “Diogenes” to-day.

    Arrangements will be made for Puddifoot to leave by a later boat and, pending his departure, he will be detained in prison.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] W. J. McKell
Minister of Justice.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[23] Not relevant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[22-21]

Evening News, Wed 24 Jun 1925 ⁴³

SENSATIONAL MOVE
IN PUDDIFOOT CASE.
————————
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE STEPS IN
————————
REFUSES TO ALLOW DEPORTATION
ORDERED BY PREDECESSOR
————
DRAMATIC ELEVENTH HOUR MOVE
————

The Minister for Justice, Mr WJ McKell, has refused to ratify the action of the previous Minister for Justice, Mr Ley, and allow the deportation of Leonard Henry Puddifoot, the 18-year-old English lad who was on September 12, 1923, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by his Honor, Mr Justice Ferguson, for the manslaughter of Percival Fred Carrat at Arncliffe on May 28, 1923.

    Puddifoot will be kept in gaol until he has served the remainder of his sentence and then deported.

    A sensational message received from our Melbourne correspondent this morning was the firs intimation that anything was moving in regard to Puddifoot.
Some months ago the “News” political representative asked Mr Ley how Puddifoot was faring, and the Minister replied that certain legislation, which he designed to submit to Parliament, would deal with such cases.

    There was no suggestion that Puddifoot’s term of sentence would be shortened.

PUDDIFOOT WAS PACKED UP READY TO GO

While there was no public announcement in regard to the case, it is now known that a move was made by one member of the Fuller Government to have Puddifoot deported.. That move was made early in the piece; in fact, very shortly after Puddifoot was sent to Goulburn Gaol to serve his sentence.

    The opposition of a colleague prevented his deportation, and he was left in Goulburn Gaol.

    Public interest in the case was revived by a debate in the Legislative Assembly, and members of all sides of the House showed great dissatisfaction at the light sentence imposed..

    Nothing, however could be done to rectify that, so the debate resulted in nothing.

    Some months ago, the question of deportation was revived, and, according to information from Melbourne, the Federal authorities agreed to the request of Mr Ley that he be deported.

   After the elections—in fact early this month—Mr Ley gave his official sanction to the deportation of Puddifoot.

    It was on June 5 or June 6 that Mr Ley signed the necessary papers.

    The Commonwealth authorities were quick to give effect to the State Minister’s desires, and arrangements were made for the deportation on the Diogenes, an Aberdeen liner, which is due to sail at noon to-day.

    So secret were the preparations for the deportation that it is understood Mr McKell did not learn of the position until this week. He had little time to act. The State Governor had already signed the papers empowering the deportation, and only a few hours remained for Mr McKell to take action. This morning he moved.

    The previous order made at the instance of Mr Ley was revoked by the State Governor at the request of Mr McKell, and Puddifoot was thus prevented from boarding the Diogenes.

    At this time Puddifoot was waiting at the Water Police Court for transfer to the ship. He learned early yesterday that he was to be returned to England. His friends here did not care what happened to him, it seemed, and inquiries to-day showed that no friends awaited him in England. Yet he showed joy at the prospect of return.

    He looked well and bright as he waited at the Water Police Court, but shortly after 9 o’clock this morning this joy changed to gloom when the message came through from his authority that he was not to be taken aboard the Diogenes.

CAPTAIN WAITS

    On board the Diogenes the Captain had received instructions early I the week of the character of the passenger he would receive to-day. All arrangements were made for his reception, and only the captain was aware of the record of Puddifoot.

    As the steamer was to sail at noon, the captain expected to have Puddifoot aboard by 11 o’clock; but the unexpected happened, and, instead of Puddifoot, a message came stating that he would not arrive.

    Goulburn gaol will be his residence until the three years’ sentence has been served. Then he will be deported.

    Only one year and nine months have passed since the sentence was passed upon him.

MINISTER’S ACTION

    The action of the Minister for Justice, Mr McKell, will be commended in many quarters, as there was considerable public feeling over the case, and many people in the community take the view that Puddifoot should serve the sentence imposed upon him.

————
THE CRIME

    Puddifoot’s offence was one of the most revolting in the annals of crime in Australia. On the night of Monday, May 28, the five-years-old fair-haired Percival Frederick Carratt was sent by his mother from Terry-street, Arncliffe, where he lived, to make a purchase in a little shop in Rocky Point-road. It was just after dark, and when he reached the corner, about 200 yards from his home, he was accosted by Puddifoot, who, at that time, was employed as a laborer a little distance away.

    The boy had a school bag on his back, and Puddifoot began to talk to him about it, and also about his curls—fair, silken strands, that hung on the little fellow’s neck.

LIKE TO MEET HIM

    He told the boy that he would like to meet him in about five minutes’ time “across the way”. What Puddifoot meant by that was the vacant block of land that ran back to the railway line, and on which young Carrat and other schoolboys were in the habit of playing..

    The little boy went to Moloney’s greengrocer’s shop and bought carrots, which he had been sent to purchase by his mother.

SEEN BY A GIRL

On leaving the shop he was seen by a young lady who knew him well. She spoke to “Percy”, as she called him; but he did not answer her. Thinking this strange, she watched him for a moment, and it was this fact that led to the clearing up of what, when the detectives first took charge of the case, appeared to be a insoluble mystery.

THE SHADOW

    She noticed that the boy kept gazing into the dark on the vacant allotment as if expecting to see someone there. As a matter of fact it transpired that Puddifoot was standing in the shadow of the fence waiting for the boy with whom he had made the appointment. In the light of subsequent evidence it was proved that the little chap crossed Rocky Point-road and went up to Puddifoot, who seized him in his arms.

    Before he could cry out, Puddifoot placed a hand across his mouth and ran with him several hundred yards to a point just near the railway fence, where there was a clump of bushes.

    The little fellow in the meantime in the death agonies of smothering ki8cked one of his shoes off, and when Puddifoot arrived at the bushes he found that the little chap was dead. He threw him into the bushes and made off.

    A couple of hours later Mr F Marsden, grandfather of the lad, with a search party composed of neighbours, discovered the body where Puddifoot had thrown it.

POLICE THEORY

    The police theory was that the boy had been killed in the course of childish play with other schoolmates; but the publication by the “Evening News” that he had been killed by a human stayr [sic–satyr] lead to a new line of inquiry.

    Dr Sheldon’s report that the lad had been asphyxiated supported the theory put forward by the “Evening News,” with the result that detectives from headquarters arrested Puddifoot on his way home from work.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[20]

C & EC’25/5436

T.B.

Collector of Customs, NSW

Immigration Act 1901-24: Deportation of L. H. PUDDIFOOT.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department.

    Adverting to the Secretary’s memo of 28th May 1925, regarding the deportation of L. H. Puddifoot, I desire to report that arrangements were made with Dalgety& Coy. For Puddifoot to sign on the articles of the s.s. “Diogenes” sailing from this port to-day.

    At 10.30 this morning, however, Mr McKell, State Minister for Justice, communicated with me by ’phone and stated that it was desired to postpone the deportation of Puddifoot until a later date.

    He said that pending deportation Puddifoot would be kept in gaol.

    I referred Mr McKell to the letter from his Department of 10/6/25, intimating that approval had been given to Puddifoot being released from custody for deportation by the “Diogenes” sailing to-day, and asked him if in view of that letter he would kindly confirm his request in writing that the deportation be deferred. This he said he would do, and later on in the day, the attached letter was received from Mr McKell.

    A cutting from to-day’s Sydney “Evening News” on the subject is attached.

[Signed] W. H. Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.
24-6-1925.

————

Boarding Inspector
24/6/25
Mr Wilson
    Please collect Deportation Order from the Prison’s Department.

The Boarding Inspector
    Deportation Order (Gaoler’s copy) now attached.

[Signed] R. W. Wilson.
30th June 1925.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[19]

C & EC’25/5436

E.M.
6th July, 1925.

Memorandum.

    Adverting to my minute of 24th June (C & EC’25/5436) relative to the deportation of L. H. Puddifoot, I desire to state that at an interview with me this morning Mr McKell, Minister for Justice, asked if the Department would kindly let him have a letter to the effect that the deportation order signed by the Minister for Home and Territories on 25th May, 1925, would be operative at the date of Puddifoot’s release from prison on the termination of his sentence of three years.

    I should be glad of advise as to whether there is any objection to the Minister for Justice being supplied with the desired letter.

[Signed] W. H. Barkley,
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[18]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 8th July, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW

re L. H. PUDDIFOOT.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 24th June, C.25/5436, will you kindly ascertain and advise me as to the date on which Puddifoot is due for discharge.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

————

E.M.

    I communicated the above request to Mr McKell by ’phone this morning and he said he would let me have the desired information in the course of the day.

[Initial illegible]
Collector.
13/7/1925.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[17]

C & EC’25/6312

Minister of Justice
and Assistant Colonial Treasurer
NSW

14th July, 1925.

Dear Mr Barkley,

    In answer to your telephone message yesterday I have to inform you the Leonard H. Puddifoot is due for discharge from gaol on the 13th December next.

Yours sincerely,
W. J. McKell

W Barkley, Esq.,
  Customs Office,
     Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[16]

T.B.

C & EC’25/6312
16th July, 1925.

MEMORANDUM:

  In reply to the Secretary’s memorandum of 8th July, 1925, regarding the proposed deportation of L.H. Puddifoot, I desire to state that Mr W.J. McKell, Minister of Justice NSW, has advised that Puddifoot is due for discharge from gaol on the 13th December next.

[Initial illegible]
Collector of Customs, NSW.

Boarding Inspector 16/7/25

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[15]

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

UE.
No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 14th July, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 6th July, C’25/5436, relative to the question of the deportation of L.H. PUDDIFOOT, I desire to inform you that there would be no objection to furnishing the State Minister for Justice with a letter stating that the order signed by the Minister for Home and Territories on the 25th May, 1925, would be operative at the date of Puddifoot’s release from prison on the termination of his sentence of three years.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.                                                                

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[14]

C & EC’25/6507

18th July,

Dear Sir,

    Adverting to your interview with me on 6th July I desire to inform you that advice has been received from the Secretary, Home & Territories Department that the order signed by the Minister for Home & Territories on 25th May, 1925 for the deportation of Leonard H. Puddifoot will be operative at the date of Puddifoot’s release from prison on the termination of his sentence of three years.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] W. H. Barkley.
Collector of Customs, NSW.

Boarding Inspector 20/7/25

The Hon W.J. McKell, M.L.A.,
  Minister of Justice & Assistant Colonial Treasurer, NSW,
     The Treasury,
       Sydney.

For Recorders [Initial illegible] 22/7/25                                                                      

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[13]

C25/6507

Minister of Justice

Sydney, NSW.
22nd July, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant respecting the deportation of L. H. Puddifoot, and to thank you for the information contained therein.

Yours faithfully,
W. J. McKell

W.H. Barkley, Esquire,
  Collector of Customs,
     Sydney.

————

See
[Initial illegible]
25.7.25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[12]

6507

Department of Prisons, NSW,
Comptroller General’s Office,
Phillip Street, Sydney,
13th October, 1925.

Dear Sir,

    In reference to the case of prisoner Leonard Henry Puddifoot and your communication, dated 18th July last, informing the Honorable Minister of Justice and Assistant Colonial Treasurer that the order dated 25th May, 1925, signed by the Minister for Home and Territories, will be operative at the date of the prisoner’s release, I beg to inform you that Puddifoot will be due for discharge from prison on the 13th December next, and that it is desired that the Deportation Order be acted upon about that date.

    In a communication, dated 29th May, 1925, from the Prime Minister to the Honorable the Premier of this State, the opinion is expressed that Puddifoot should be sent back in a vessel of the same line as the one by which he arrived here from England. Messrs Dalgety & Co. Ltd, are the agents, and I have ascertained from this firm they will have boats leaving Sydney on the 9th and 12th December next.

    I shall, therefore, be glad if you will be so kind as to cause the necessary arrangements to be made with the Company named for the prisoner’s passage by one of their vessels sailing on either of the dates mentioned.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] Geo Steele
Comptroller-General.

W. H. Barkley, Esq, J.P.,
  Collector of Customs,
     Sydney.

————

Mr Draff
[Initial illegible]
13-10-25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[11]

LMB

Box 8a ------

C’25/8717
17th November, 1925

Dear Sir

    With reference to L. H. PUDDIFOOT, who is at present serving a term of imprisonment, arrangements can be made for the release of this man prior to the departure of the s.s. “Diogenes” from this port on the 5th December, conditionally upon a passage being provided for him in that vessel.

    I shall be glad to receive early advice as to whether your company is prepared to sign PUDDIFOOT on the Articles as a member of the crew.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] W. H. Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Manager,
  Dalgety & Co, Ltd,
     Bent Street,
       Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[10]

DALGETY AND COMPANY LTD

Sydney 19th November 1925.

GRR/HR

The Collector of Customs,
  Customs House,
     Sydney.

Dear Sir,

    Referring to your letter of the 17th instant concerning L. H. Puddifoot, we have to advise that on the return of the “Diogenes” from Brisbane on the 2nd or 3rd December we will be pleased to make arrangements with the Commander for the carriage of this man. As far as we can say at present the “Diogenes” will be despatched on the 5th December, and we assume that, as previously arranged, there will be no objection to signing on Puddifoot as a member of the crew.

Yours faithfully,
Dalgety and Company Limited
per [Signature illegible]                                                                      

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[9]

LMB

C’25/9734
21st November, 1925

 

Dear Sir,

    With reference to your communication of the 13th October, 1925, re LEONARD HENRY PUDDIFOOT, I have to advise that Dalgety & Co. Ltd, the Agents for s.s. “Diogenes” are prepared to make arrangements to return this man to Great Britain as a member of the crew by that vessel due to sail from this port on or about 5th December, 1925.

    When the time of sailing of the s.s. “Diogenes” is definitely fixed a mutual arrangement will be made with your Department to enable PUDDIFOOT to appear before the Shipping Master and later be placed on board the vessel.

Yours faithfully,
[Signed] W. H. Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Comptroller- General of Prisons,
  Phillip Street,
     Sydney.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[8]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 3rd December, 1925.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1925.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

To the Master,
    ............
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides”, has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1925, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of deportation I do further order that he be kept in custody of the bearer of this Order until he has been deported from the Commonwealth.

[Signed] G. F. Pearce
Minister for Home and Territories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[7]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 3rd December, 1925.

IMMIGRATION ACT 1901-1925.
DEPORTATION ORDER.

 

To the Gaoler,
    ............
    Whereas Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT, who arrived in Australia on the 6th August 1922, by the s.s. “Euripides”, has within three years after his arrival in the Commonwealth been convicted in Australia of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer:

    Now therefore I, the Minister for Home and Territories, in pursuance of Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1925, do order that the said Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT be deported from the Commonwealth, and for the purpose of so deporting him from the Commonwealth I do authorise you to hand him over to the custody of the person producing this Order..

[Signed] G. F. Pearce
Minister for Home and Territories.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[6]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 3rd December, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW,

    With reference to your memorandum of the 16th July last, No. C.25/6312, relative to the case of L. H. PUDDIFOOT, I forward herewith fresh Orders, issued under Section 8A of the Immigration Act 1901-1925, for this person’s deportation from the Commonwealth, and shall be glad if you will substitute them for the orders signed on the 25th May last and forwarded to you with my memorandum of the 26th May.

    2. The fresh orders have been issued in view of the new Section 8C of the Act, so that, if necessary, you may arrange for Puddifoot to be detained in prison or other suitable custody after the date (13th December) on which he is at present due for discharge and pending the departure of the vessel by which he is to be deported.

    3. The Agents of the “Euripides” should be required to provide a passage by the first suitable vessel of the same Line. As previously advised, the cost of the passage in this case may be charged to this Department.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

————

The Collector,
    The Boarding Inspector advises that arrangements have been made to deport Puddifoot per s.s. Diogenes”, advertised to sail at 4 pm this afternoon.

[Signed] Inspector Parness
Actg C/C Correspondence
7-12-25.

————

The Collector
    L. H. PUDDIFOOT sailed for London yesterday by the s.s. “Diogenes” as a member of the crew.
    2. Submitted that the Secretary, Home and Territories Department, be informed accordingly.

[Signed] J. M. Bragg
Boarding Inspector
8/12/25.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[5]

T. B.

C’25/10228
9th December, 1925.

MEMORANDUM:

    In reply to his memorandum of 3rd December, No. 25/17232, the Secretary is advised that L. HH. Puddifoot sailed for England on 7th December, 1925, by the s.s. “Diogenes” as a member of the crew.

[Signed] W. H. Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department.
     Melbourne.

————

Boarding Inspector
[Initial illegible]
10/12/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[4]

ELB.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 10th December, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

    Adverting to my memorandum of the 3rd December, relative to the case of L. H. PUDDIFOOT, will you kindly advise me by telegraph of this person’s departure from your port.

[Signed] F. J. Quinlan
for Secretary.

————

Boarding Inspector
    (?) to you 10-12-25
    [Initial illegible]

————

    The Secretary was advised of Puddifoot’s departure by letter on the 9/12/25.

[Initial illegible]
14/12/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[3]

E.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

Customs and Excise Office.

Fremantle. 21st December, 1925.

Confidential.

MEMORANDUM:

    The Collector is advised that Leonard Henry PUDDIFOOT (on articles under the name of (Henry Nelson) left the Commonwealth by s.s. “Diogenes” which sailed from Fremantle for overseas on 18/12/’25.

[Signed] M. B. Synan
Collector of Customs, WA.

The Collector of Customs
  for New South Wales,
     Sydney.

————

Boarding Inspector
    (?) to you 14-12-25
    30/12/25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[2]

UE.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

No. 25/17232

Home and Territories Department,
61 Spring Street,
Melbourne. 21st December, 1925.

The Collector of Customs,
  Sydney, NSW.

    With reference to your memorandum of the 9th December, C25/10228, relative to L. H. Puddifoot, who sailed for England on the 7th December by the s.s. “Diogenes” as a member of the crew, I shall be glad to learn whether it was understood by the Shipping Company that this man was to be discharged in England and not brought back to Australia as a member of the crew.

][Signed] F. J. Quinlan
]Assistant Secretary.

————

Boarding Inspector
    (?) to you today
    30/12/25

————

Mr Anderson

    Please inform the Secretary that it is understood by the Shipping Coy that Puddifoot is to be discharged in England and not allowed to be brought back to Australia

[Initial illegible
5/1/26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[1]

LMB

C’25/10865
5th January, 1926

MEMORANDUM:

    The Secretary is informed in reply to his memorandum of the 21st December, 25/17232, that it is understood by the Agents of the s.s. “Diogenes” that L. H. PUDDIFOOT will be discharged from that vessel in England and not to be allowed to return to Australia.

[Signed] W. H. Barkley
Collector of Customs, NSW.

The Secretary,
  Home & Territories Department,
     Melbourne.

 

 

---

¹    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Tue 29 May 1923, p. 1. Emphasis added and in original. The young boy’s family name variously spelled Carrat or Carratt – transcribed as found throughout.

²    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 30 May 1923, p. 1. Emphasis in original and added.

³    The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 30 May 1923, p. 13.

⁴    The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 31 May 1923, p. 9.

⁵    Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 3 Jun 1923, pp. 1, 9. Emphasis in original and added.

⁶    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 7 Jun 1923, p. 1. Emphasis in original.

⁷    The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 8 Jun 1923, p. 5.

⁸    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Thu 14 Jun 1923, pp. 1, 9. Emphasis in original and added.

⁹    The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 15 Jun 1923, p. 6. Emphasis added.

¹⁰   Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 17 Jun 1923, pp. 1, 9.

¹¹   Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Tue 11 Sep 1923, p. 7. Emphasis in original and added.

¹²   Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 12 Sep 1923, p. 9. Emphasis in original.

¹³   The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 12 Sep 1923, p. 10.

¹⁴   The Sydney Morning Herald, Thu 13 Sep 1923, p. 6.

¹⁵   Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 16 Sep 1923, pp. 9, 14. Emphasis in original and added.

¹⁶   Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Sat 22 Sep 1923, p. 2.

¹⁷   Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 23 Sep 1923, pp. 6, 7. Emphasis in original and added.

¹⁸    For the full debate in the NSW Legislative Assembly regarding Puddifoot, see: Hansard of Wed 19 Sep 1923, pp. 950-982.

¹⁹    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Mon 8 Oct 1923, p. 6.

²⁰    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Mon 15 Oct 1923, p. 4.

²¹    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Tue 27 Nov 1923, p. 6.

²²    Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 27 Jan 1924, p. 11. Emphasis in original and added. 

²³    This publication is available at the NSW State Library and was published by: Australasian White Cross League, 1915-1929.

²⁴    Singleton Argus, Sat 27 Jun 1925, p. 5.

²⁵    The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 14 Oct 1925, p. 15.

²⁶    The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 10 Nov 1925, p. 11.

²⁷    The Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 11 Nov 1925, p. 19.

²⁸    The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 13 Nov 1925, p. 15. Emphasis added.

²⁹    The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 4 Dec 1925, p. 15.

³⁰    Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 6 Dec 1925, p. 8.

³¹    The Sydney Morning Herald, Tue 15 Dec 1925, p. 11.

³²    Truth, (Syd, NSW), Sun 20  Dec 1925, p. 13. Emphasis in original and added.

³³    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Mon 21 Dec 1925, p. 7. Emphasis in original.

³⁴    For the full debate in the NSW Legislative Assembly regarding Puddifoot, see: Hansard of 21 Dec 1925, pp. 3721-3746.

³⁵    NAA: A1, 1925/17232. The numbers in square brackets reflect the order in the NAA file.

³⁶    The pencilled underlining was not made by the Judge but later by someone else. Other emphasis are added.

³⁷    The next four pages are reproduced from a partly illegible source. (Torn edges.)

³⁸    The Argus, Thu 25 Jun 1925, p. 13.

³⁹    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 24 Jun 1925, p. 1. Emphasis in original. The above article addressed to: “The Secretary, Home & Territories Dept., Melbourne. Forwarded for information. Collector of Customs, NSW. 24-6-1925.”

⁴⁰    The Argus, Fri 4 Dec 1925, p. 12.

⁴¹    The date and details of this ‘Argus’ article could not be verified on Trove.

⁴²    NAA: SP42/1, C1925/10865. The numbers in square brackets reflect the order in the NAA file.

⁴³    Evening News, (Sydney, NSW), Wed 24 Jun 1925, p. 1. Emphasis in original.

---