A SENTENCE REDUCED

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21647, 4 December 1935, Page 9

A SENTENCE REDUCED

USE OF REFORMATIVE DETENTION INCREASE OP MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT

"In my opinion reformative detention should not be resorted to for the imposition of a longer term of imprisonment than the prescribed maximum because the offence is a bad one nor because the offender has a bad record," says the judgment of Mr Justice Northcroft on an application of a prisoner for a review of a sentence of reformative detention on the ground that it was excessive. The sentence was reduced from two years' reformative detention to six months' reformative detention. „ , The prisoner, Sidney George Hall, was,tried at Nelson before Mr T. E. Maunsell, SJVt., on four charges. The first charge was of failure to account for 10s, thereby committing theft, the second was of theft of 7s, the third of theft of 9s, and the fourth charge was of failing to account for £2 2s, thereby committing theft. The prisoner pleaded not guilty to all charges and elected to be dealt with summarily on the fourth charge, on which he had the right of trial by jury. On the first charge he was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour; on the second and third charges he was acquitted, and on the fourth charge he was convicted and ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for a period not exceeding two years. For the fourth offence, the second one on which the prisoner was convicted, the maximum punishment is prescribed by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927, as being imprisonment "with or without hard labour for six months," or a fine "not exceeding £20." Prisoner's Record "The record of the prisoner is a bad one," says the judgment, "including seven convictions for crimes involving dishonesty. He has been admitted to probation, to reformative detention, and to imprisonment with hard labour. His last sentence was one of three years with hard labour for burglary. Neither his record nor the report of the probation officer leads me to hope that reformative detention is likely to induce reformation. By section 3 of the Crimes Amendment Act, 1910, this form of detention is to be applied where 'the court "or judge thinks fit, having regard to the conduct, character or associations, or mental condition of such person, the nature of the offence or any special circumstances of the case.* "This power should be employed to order detention in excess of the prescribed maximum periods of imprisonment only in exceptional circumstances and where there is the strongest reason to anticipate beneficial results for the offender. In my opinion reformative detention should not be resorted to for the imposition of a longer term of imprisonment than the prescribed maximum because % the offence is a bad one, nor because the offender has a bad record. In my judgment this present case does not reveal those exceptional prospects of rehabilitation which alone would justify a sentence in/excess of the statutory maximum. For these reasons I consider the Appropriate sentence in the instance under review should have been* one of imprisonment with hard labour for six months.

Bight of Appeal "Section 5 of the Crimes Amendment Ait, 1910, provides that 'every person sentenced by a magistrate to a period of reformative detention may . . . . apply ex parte to a judge of the Supreme Court to review that sentence . . . . and such judge may thereupon either uphold or reverse the sentence or reduce the term thereof.' I entertain some doubt whether this is authority for the setting aside of such a sentence of reformative detention and for its replacement by a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour. In these circumstances I will make an order for the reduction of the sentence of two years' reformative detention to one of refcrmafrve detention for a period of six months." Mr W. C. Harley, of Nelson, appeared for the prisoner.