LAW REPORT.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 26, 3 July 1912, Page 366

LAW REPORT.

(“ New Zealand Law Reports,” Vol. xxxi, page 352.) [S.C. Hearing. Auckland (Chapman, J.) 24th August, 1911.] Rex v . Smith. Rex v. King. Criminal Law — Two Pleas of “ Guilty ” for the same Offence itnder Misapprehension—Jurisdiction of Court to amend Second Plea by entering Plea of “Autrefois convict.” Two prisoners, under the misapprehension that they were merely repeating the confession they made when they pleaded guilty before the Magistrate, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to a count in au indictment charging them with the same offence to which they had previously pleaded. This was discovered prior to sentence. Held, That the Court had jurisdiction, as sentence bad not been pronounced, to amend the second pleas by entering pieas of “ Autrefois convict,,'” and to record judgment on those pleas for the accused. Application to amend pleas of “ Guilty by entering in lieu thereof pleas of “ Autrefois convict” The circumstances appear from the judgment of Cuapman, J. Tole, K.G., for the Crown. Tne accused in person. Chapman, J. : Tlis prisoners were engaged with others in committing the crime of breaking and entering. They formed a gang, and each of them stood convicted, on his own plea before the Magistrate, of several offences. In this case they were indicted as follows: In the first count King and one Bartlett were charged with breaking into the dwellinghouse of one Clarks. To this they pleaded guilty. In the second count King and Smith, together with one Bartlett, were charged with breaking into the house of one Fletcher. King pleaded guilty, and Smith was acquitted. In the third count King and Smith, together with Bartlett and one Marehbank, were charged with breaking into Hellaby’s shop. There were charges outside this indictment, on which they bad pleaded guilty before the Magistrate. The criminal sittings commenced on Monday, the 21st of August, 19.11. Sentence has not yet been passed. My attention is now called to the fact that on the oth of June, 1911, King and Smith, together with one Christie, who was charged with them, had severally pleaded guilty before the Magistrate to this charge, and had on that date been committed for sentence. It is evident that they have now pleaded guilty to this count of the indictment under a misapprehension. They must have thought that they were merely repeating the coafession they made when they pleaded guilty before the Magistrate. It would be unjust to leave this double conviction for the same offence standing, as it might be counted twice in some future proceeding. In my opinion I have jurisdiction, as sentence has not yet been pronounced, to am-nd these pieas by entering a plea in each case of “ Autrefois convict,” and to recoid judgment on that plea for tne defendant. The accused will then stand to be sentenced upon the plea taken before the Magistrate. Both the Crown Prosecutor and the accused now apply to me to take this course, and I accordingly so order. Solicitor for the Crown: J. A. Tole, Crown Solicitor (Auckland).