JUDGES AND SENTENCES.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, Issue XLIII, 9 February 1909, Page 2

JUDGES AND SENTENCES.

APPARENT ANOMALIES EXPLAINED. CIRCUMSTANCES ALTER CASES. [United Pbes3 Association.] WELLINGTON, Monday. One of the newspapers this morning commented upon the apparent inconsistency of a sentence of five years imprisonment paosed upon a prisoner found guilty of common theft last week, the jury having discarded the graver allegation of violence. Thia, it was pointed out, appeared excessively severe when compared with a sentence passed by the same judge at the previous sessions. At the Supreme Court to-daj dealing with the case of a man who had pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking, entering, and theft, Mr Justico Cooper had some comment to make on the circumstances that determine a judge in sentencing a prisoner. As cases depended on circumstances, His Honor said a judge had to exercise discretion in passing sentences on prisoners. There were cases where persona had been convicted of certain, offences, and where the circumstances of the case and the character and past record of the persons showed the necessity for the safety of the public that such persons should be effectually impeded and prevented in their career of crime. There were other cases in which the crime alleged wag similar, and similar circumstances existed; but where there was a difference in the point of actual criminality. The judge then dealt with the matter with, entirely different viows. "I make these remarks," said His Honor, "because it is impossible for persons not on the judgment seat to appreciate, properly the reasons that move a judge to be lenient in one ease and in another case to be severe. ' ' His Honor then referred to a case last week, in which he said the circumhtanees were much the same as in the present ease, and in which he had imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment on a hardened criminal. "Yet in this case," said His Honor, ■'the eircumtiinees are such as justify me on the full recommendation of the probation officer in admitting this man to pr.ibaion. Legally, perhaps, the cases are the same; but not so otherwise. The prisoner, under the influence of liquor, went in open daylight in the middle of the afternoon into a shop in full view of the police station. He had pleaded guilty to the charge. His previous character had been uniformly good, and every* thing goes to show that he has beea an honest, hard workfng man. It is reasonable to expect that reform will follow without punishment. His brother has offered td" take him to work on a farm in Taranaki. This is one of those cases in which a person not knowing the facts of the case would say that the judge had exercised undue leniency, that thero was inconsistency between the course adopted in this and the course adopted in another caso in which the offence might seem less. The previous character of the persons, and the circumstances of ' the case, make all the difference." His Honor then admitted the prisoner to two years' probation -on condition that ho should go up to his brother's farm in Taranaki, and pay off the costs of the prosecution in quarterly instalments.