FIRST OFFENDERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 August 1921, Page 3

FIRST OFFENDERS.

PRINCIPLES Or PROR.VI iy.N. MR .11 STR K REED'S VIEWS. W I‘jid.LNG'lON, August 9. His Honour Alt Justice Reed, who lias conducted the criminal sittings ol the present session oi the Supreme Couri, in expressing his opinion on Saturday morning, oil the question ol granting probation to first offenders, indicated that lie was not in agreeiunlit with His Honour Mr Justice Salnioiul in his recent pronouncement on I the question at the Auckland sittings , of the court. : IS PROBATION A MATTER OK j RIGHT? \ •The iplcstion as to when probitionj should lie granted lias come uemi- , utMitly before the public in the • ursc • of the last week.” said His Honour j •‘That is largely due to the fact that ; i( js reported that His Honour Mr j Justice Salinond lias expressed the j opinion that the effect of a recent de- I eision of the Court of Appeal to j establish ‘That probation is a matter ; of course and a matter of right ill j cases of offences of dishonesty, unless | they arc repeated; in other irils, , every man ill this country i- s entitled ! to commit one theft or one forgery j | with safety and remain at liberty. j “NO NEW PRINCIPLE,” •J cannot agree with His Honour’s | interpretation of the decision in ques- ■ tion. ’Pile Court, ol Appeal laid e.ovn j no new principle; it dealt solely with ! the circumstances of the ease ii 'der I review. As one of the members of the | Court of Appeal and speaking entirely | for myself, 1 believe the general dcsir,. i of it.s members was to apply to that case the principles that have guided the j courts in New Zealand since 188(i, when the Eirct Offenders,’ Probation Act. was passed, and in which t was recited, ‘AVhereas it would he conducive to the I public good if first-offenders were in ; certain eases permitted to be at large on probation, without suffering imprison- j m cut.' EXTENSION OF BENEFITS. “The success of the administration of the statute, in the reformation of offenders, is beyond question, so nueli so that last session, the Legislature widened the scope of the Act, by permitting the courts to extend its I>< liefits to those who were not first offenders. Tn the ease before the Court of Appeal the prisoner was 22 years of he was a first offender, he bote fl

good character, his release on probation was recommended by an experienced probation officer, his employer was prepared to take him back into his j employ and he had 'been in gaol writ- , ing sentence and since sentence for some weeks. : MAY EVERY MAN COMMIT ONE OFFENCE? j “The release of this youth on proha- . tion was considered by the Court of j Appeal to be in accordance with the principles upon which the court had always acted in the past. Tt cert’inly did not intend to lay dnW'n the pritviple ' : that “every man in the country is entitled to commit one theft or one for- , gery.’ j “T entirely agree with His Honour i that such a principle involves ‘a doctrine unsound and dangerous, the in- , j evitable result of which is the deyada- i tion of the standard of honesty in the , country.’ • 'lt is to be hoped that the time is j 1 far distant when a principle, eminent- i ted by the Court of Appeal of N< w i Zealand, can be fittingly so described, i TI!F. DETERMINING FACTOR-h , i “My own view is that certain factors i must always he taken into eonsidera- I tion. in deciding whether the benefits I of the Act should he extended fo an offender: (1) Age of accused: (2) his previous conduct and reputation; (3) whether lie has added to his offence by the crime of perjury in the witnessbox ; (4) the probation officer’s and the ; (Milice reports on the accused, and, particularly where the probation officer is 1 a man of experience, whether he re-, commends probation; (5) nature of tlq, 1 offence, and the circumstances under . w hich it was committed. It may per- t haps lie necessary also to take into <ou- I sideration the prevalence M a partieu- i far class of crime, and the necessity of , ’ endeavouring to stamp it out, by refits- i ing to admit to probation that special j class of offender. I “NOT ACTING AGAINST PRIN- i , CTPLE.” I j “In my opinion all the above factors must be taken into consideration. If the general result ist unfa von raljjl'e, then T shall have no hesitation in refusing probation, even though the ofiendou has”'never committed a crime, before feeling sure that, in doing so, I am not acting against any principle laid down or implied by the Co urt of Appeal.”