Incest, Maori and the Courts: Justice Herdman in 1922

I’ve found something really astonishing in a 1922 issue of the Auckland Star. On Wednesday, March 22, 1922, at Auckland, Justice Alexander Herdman, a senior Freemason and former Attorney-General who (in)famously as Attorney appointed himself to the bench of the Supreme Court sentenced a Whangarei man on a charge of incest which related to a “most disgusting” sexual act he evidently had admitted engaging in with his sister.

Justice Herdman meted out to the prisoner in the dock, Hohepa Tanu Pomare,  a six month prison sentence including hard labour.  Sounds a bit light, especially for the times and given the ostensible depravity of the offending. But here is Justice Herdman’s account of how Pomare’s sentence was determined:

“If you were a European I would have given you a long sentence, but you are a Maori, and I suppose I must consider your peculiar ideas of morality. You will be imprisoned for six months with hard labour.”

WTF? By “your” “peculiar ideas of morality” His Honour clearly refers not to Mr Pomare’s own highly dubious moral values, but to those of Maori as a whole! He’s saying that the crime was abhorrent, but (in effect) the moral decadence and turpitude of Maori assuages his personal guilt. So much so as to qualify for him for a substantial discount on his sentence! Ninety years ago a judge could effectively treat Maori as so debased as a people that to Maori who commit incest are (far) less culpable than Pakeha who do the very same deeds!

Of course, despite the huge variation in mores across all cultures, incest taboos are universal. But to think that even given the backward attitudes ingrained in colonial minds at the time a judge could get away with this! It just beggars belief.

I have read the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry for Justice (later Sir) Alexander Herdman. No surprises there. A right-wing anti-unionist Freemason who despite his own mediocre legal background appointed himself to a cosy judicial post on retiring from politics, maintained a “tough-guy” stance on law and order issues….and saw Maori as sick and twisted savages who had such peculiar moral standards that their culpability for despicable sexual crimes was reduced….

What has changed? And what has stayed the same? (I leave for homework the connection between Freemasonry and Social Darwinism..)