Doubt On Court’s Sentencing Power

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29871, 11 July 1962, Page 18

Doubt On Court’s Sentencing Power

<Neu? Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. July 10.

Doubt as to whether the power of the Supreme Court to impose a further sentence of preventive detention (maximum 14 years* on a prisoner who committed further, crimes while on probationary licence during the currency of such a sentence was expressed by the Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough).

Douglas Vincent Ward, aged 40. a workman, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on each of 17 charges of burglary, the terms to be concurrent.

Ward pleaded guilty to the offences, which were committed since his release on parole after serving five years and a half of a sentence of preventive detention.

“When the offender came before me I inquired whether the Minister had directed that he be recalled to continue his sentence," said his Honour.

"Counsel were not then able to say whether or not he had been recalled, but subsequently I was informed that he had not yet been recalled and that it was the policy of the Justice Department not to recommend a recall until the Court had pronounced its sentence. I acknowledge and appreciate the department's courtesy." Expressing doubt as to whether he had the power to impose a further sentence of preventive detention dur-

ing tiie currency of the sentence still being served, his Honour said that a proper interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act was of great importance. If it were necessary that it should be determined in the present proceedings, he would have to consider whether he ought not to reserve it as a matter of law for the opinion of the Court of Appeal and state a case accordingly. At all events, he would not decide it without hearing a much fuller argument than he had so far heard. He was of the opinion that the offences did not call for another sentence of preventive detention.

Ward had a formidable record of convictions. Since the age of 17 he had been before the Court 20 times and in prison 11 times. “Notwithstanding the offender's earlier life of crime, he does appear to have derived some benefit from ■ the sentence that was last imposed on him. He was released on probation after five years and a half. I suggest that is an early release and would have been recommended by the Parole Board only if it . had received favourable reports on his behaviour and was very confident indeed that if he were released he would be unlikely to continue a life of crime.”

Mr G. L. McLeod appeared for Ward and Mr W. R. Birks for the Crown.