Court of Criminal Appeal
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700204 |
| Published date | 01 April 1953 |
| Date | 01 April 1953 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Court of Criminal Appeal
SENTENCES
OF
PREVENTIVE
DETENTION
AND CORRECTIVE
TRAINING:
CONVICTIONS ON
"AT
LEAST
THREE
PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS"
R. v. Rogers
ITis provided
by
s. 21 (2) of
the
Criminal Justice Act,
1948,
that
asentence of preventive detention may be
imposed on a person who inter
alia"
(b)
has been convicted
on indictment on
at
least three previous occasions". By
s. 21
(1)
corrective training may be imposed on a person
who has been convicted on
"at
least two previous occasions";
and
by
s. 22 (1) persons who have been convicted on
"at
least two previous occasions" shall be ordered
to
be subject
to
the
provisions of
that
section, unless
the
court otherwise
determines.
The
Court gave leave to appeal in R. v.
Rogers (1953, 2
W.L.R.
52)
to
enable
the
words
"at
least
three previous occasions"
to
be considered. Do
they
mean
at
least three
separate
appearances before a court, or do
they
mean three different convictions?
The
facts which gave point to this question were as
follows.
The
appellant was convicted on indictment of
housebreaking
and
larceny. Notice was served on him
under s. 23
(1)
of
the
Act of 1948 specifying the
"three
previous
occasions"-the
first being a conviction
at
Wilt-
shire
quarter
sessions,
and
the
second
and
third
being
convictions on two counts of one indictment
at
Devonshire
sessions.
The
deputy
chairman held
that
since
it
was
doubtful whether
the
second
and
third
convictions con-
stituted
two separate "occasions" within
the
meaning of
s. 21 (2)
(b),
the
court
had
no jurisdiction
to
impose a
sentence of preventive detention,
and
imposed asentence
of imprisonment.
In
delivering
the
judgment of
the
Court
(Lord Goddard, C.J., Hilbery
and
Hallett
JJ.)
the
Lord
Chief Justice said
that
he did
not
think
he could
put
the
question
better
than
by
asking,
if
aman has appeared
before
the
Central Criminal Court in
the
January
sessions,
118
COURT
OF
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
139
and
has
there pleaded guilty either
to
an
indictment con-
taining three counts, or
to
three separate indictments, all
at
the
same sessions, has he,
if
he subsequently commits
an
offence, been convicted on three previous occasions, so
that
he can be sent
to
'preventive detention?
The
statute
uses
the
expression "previous occasions"
in two other places, once in
the
same section, s. 21 (1) (b).
and
again in s. 22
(1)
(b).
In
the
opinion of
the
Court
the
same interpretation must be placed on those words in
the
corrective training sub-section
and
in s. 22 as
the
Court
put
on
them
in regard
to
s. 21 (2),
that
is,
the
sub-section
on preventive detention.
Lord Goddard referred
to
the
difficulties in
the
old
procedure under
the
Prevention of Crimes Act, 1908,
and
mentioned
the
case.of R. v. Askew (1949, 2
All
E.R.
687)
which he thought
had
been somewhat misunderstood.
Although
it
was said in
that
case
that
preventive detention
was meant for people who were more or less of
the
class
who
had
been found
to
be habitual criminals under
the
old
Act,
the
Court certainly did
not
mean
to
say
that
the
mere
fact
that
a
man
had
made some effort
to
get work or
had
had
some period of work after his
last
conviction disqualified
him
from being sentenced
to
preventive detention, although
it
might have disqualified
him
from being
an
habitual
criminal under
the
old Act,
The
Act of 1948 was intended
to
apply to people
who~howed
by
their conduct
that
previous sentences
had
had
no effect on
them
and
that
for
the
protection of
the
public
they
were fit subjects for long
detention. The main object of preventive detention is
neither
the
reformation nor
the
punishment of
the
criminal.
Its
real object is
the
protection of
the
public
by
keeping
such people in detention for a long period.
If
a
man
is sentenced
at
assizes for two or three offences
the
court always aggregates those offences,
and
says
to
a
man, either :"You- will have five years on count 1
and
three years on count 2concurrent. in which case
you
will
serve five
years";
or,
if
it
does
not
think
that
is sufficient,
"You
will have five years on
the
first count
and
three years
on
the
second count consecutive, which means
that
you
will serve eight years".
The
sentence in
the
first case is
five years
and
in the second eight years. Can
it
be said
that
in sentencing a
man
to five years
and
three years.
To continue reading
Request your trial