THE FIRST OFFENDERS PROBATION ACT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 8523, 1 November 1888, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE FIRST OFFENDERS PROBATION ACT.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S OPINION.

Richard Cheeseman, convicted of forgery and uttering was presented for sentence before his Honour the Chief Justice on Friday morning. This was a case in which the jury had recommended the prisoner to mercy on account of the smallness of the amount for which the cheque was forged (30s), and on the application of Mr 0. E. Bunny (for the defence),, the Probation Officer had undertaken to report, in accordance with the provisions of the First Offenders Act, as to whether Cheeseman’s was a proper case to be dealt with under that Act.

The Probation Officer (Mr Garvey) had submitted a report to his Honour, In answer to the Court he said the question whether the prisoner might be expected to reform was always' one that puzzled him, and he was not able to give a direct answer to it. He was not in a position to say whether or not the , prisoner had previously been of good character, but so far as he knew he had never been convicted. His Honour said he did not think this was a case which could be dealt with under the Act. There wsre three indications in the Act of the kind of cases which could be dealt with under it—(l) that the offence shall not indicate any established criminal intention ; (2) that the person accused shall have been of good character previously ; and (3) that the Probation Officer shall fairly inquire for the purpose of ascertaining whether the accused may reasonably bo expected to reform without imprisonment. Curiously enough, the word “ offender ” was interpreted in the Act to mean a person who had been found guilty by the jury, asif it were not toincludepersons who had pleaded guilty. However, that was an omission, no doubt. He had mentioned the main indications of the nature of cases to which the Act was to be applied. He had inquired of the Registrar, who was right, he believed, in informing him that persons committing forgery had not been admitted to probation in this district. The only case of such a nature which had been so dealt with by him was one which occurred at Napier, and in which a young girl, 17 years of age, who had previously borne an excellent character, was silly enough, for the purpose of getting some smart articles of clothing, to commit forgery. That was the sort of case, his Honour thought, which the Legislature intended tb apply the Act to, and he might say that he should in all probability have dealt with the case in the same way if there had not been such an Act in force, namely, ho should simply have had the girl bound to come up for sentence when called upon. In that case, however, he insisted, before admitting the prisoner to probation, that she should be taken away from that place and placed under proper care. The accused did not deny the offence ; she pleaded guilty, and cast no doubts on the matter. One of the first cases in which probation allowed was at Christchurch, the’ prisoner being a man named Roberts, convicted of forgery. Very soon afterward the man stole a horse or horses, and was convicted, and subsequently he became one of the cleverest men in the country in his own line. With reference to the present case, his Honour said he did not; think it necessary in the public interest that the Probation Officer’s inquiries should be made public, but he (his Honour) would declare his opinion to be that the prisoner was not a man of good charm ter. He was a man 32 years of age and of good education, and nothing had come out which showed that he had committed this offence in what might be called an unguarded moment. The prisoner, being asked in the usual way whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, asked his Honour to deal leniently with him in view of the special recommendation of the jury. His Honour said he would take that into consideration. He then sentenced the prisoner to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

Mr Bell suggested that His Honour should give an opinion as to whether or not the Probation Officer’s reports should be made tmblic for the purposes of Reports of Judges’ expressions of opinion on this Act.

Hig Honour thought it would hardly be fair to the prisoner to have these investigations made public, Mr Bell thought it was a pity the expressed opinions of the Judges on this Act had not been reported. Ho understood that an effort was to be made to collate them in future, i His Honour said what he feared was there would grow up a feeling that the Court, in administering this Act, was not guided by any principle, and that individuals who did not get the benefit of its provisions would think they had been unfairly dealt by. He feared,, also, that there was growing up, or might grow up, a feeling that persons might venture to commit offences for the first time in the full belief that if it did appear to be the first offence they would escape punishment. He believed that if it were found that persons might come into Court, plead not guilty to offences, and suggest all kinds of defences, not stopping short at casting suggestions of guilt on other persons—if all these things were to take place he did not know what the

result would be. His opinion, as he had already expressed it, was that a prisoner who wished to have the benefit of the Act should well consider what he had done, and show contrition from the first.