Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834901300301 |
| Published date | 01 July 1949 |
| Date | 01 July 1949 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
Vor..
XIII.
No.3.
JULY-SEPTEMBER, 1949.
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
A
MAGISTRATE'S
DILEMMA
A
SIMPLE
case of alleged larceny, brought before Mr.
Geoffrey Raphael, gave rise to
an
interesting discussion
at
Marylebone Magistrates' Court on
27th
May, 1949.
The
charge against
the
accused was of stealing a
letter
and
its
contents from
the
letter-box
at
the
office of
the
Marylebone Chamber of Commerce.
The
defendant con-
sented
to
summary
trial
and
pleaded guilty.
The
officer
in charge of
the
case said
that
the
defendant
had
gone
into
the
office
with
acheque
and
adocument obviously intended
for
the
Chamber of Commerce
and
informed
the
secretary
that
he
had
picked
them
up
at
Hyde
Park
Corner.
The
police were sent for
and
on their arrival
the
prisoner was
found
to
have in his pocket
an
envelope addressed
to
the
Marylebone Chamber of Commerce, date-stamped
26th
May.On hearing these facts,
the
learned magistrate
questioned whether
an
offence of larceny
had
been com-
mitted
and
altered
the
defendant's plea
to
one of
'Not
guilty.'
The
secretary of
the
Chamber of Commerce gave
evidence
to
the
effect
that
the
accused came into his office
and
showed him
the
cheque
and
document
and
stated
that
he
had
found
them
by
apillar-box
at
Hyde
Park
Corner.
Not
feeling satisfied,
the
secretary rang up
the
Police.
He
stated
that
at
the
back
of
the
letter-box was a wire cage
locked with apadlock,
but
it
was possible
by
slightly
forcing
the
lid
to
extract
a
letter
from
the
cage
without
unlocking it.
l'
225
226
THE
JOURNAL
OF' CRIMINAL LAW
Adetective sergeant who came
to
the
office in response
to
the
telephone call
stated
that
the
facts as deposed
to
by
the
secretary were related
to
him in
the
presence
and
hearing of
the
accused
and
the
accused, on being asked for
his explanation, gave
the
same reply as he
had
given
to
the
secretary.
The
officer thereupon told
the
defendant
that
he was
not
satisfied
and
that
he
had
reason
to
believe
that
he
had
stolen
the
letter from
the
letter-box.
The
defendant
made no reply
to
that.
He
was
then
searched
and
the
envelope was found in his pocket.
The
accused thereupon
said
"I
done
it
because I was
hard
up
and
am
fed up
walking around.
I've
been
trying
to get back
into
hospita1."
He
was arrested
and
charged
at
the
police
station
and
made no reply.
The
accused was
not
called upon
to
answer
the
evidence
of
the
prosecution.
The
magistrate, giving his judgment,
said
that
he
had
come to
the
conclusion
that
the
offence
here, if any, was
not
larceny. There was no evidence of
any
intent
permanently
to
deprive
the
owner of his
property-in
fact,
the
accused appeared to have
the
very
opposite intention.
It
may
well have been
that
the
accused
had
some improper purpose, known only to him-
self,--e.g.
the
possibility of a
reward-when
he
handed
the
cheque
and
form
back
to
the
secretary,
but
that
did
not
make
the
offence larceny,
and
accordingly
the
charge was
dismissed.
The
accused was a
man
of poor
health
who was
obviously in need of help. Various alternative charges
were discussed, such as stealing
the
envelope,
attempting
to obtain money
by
false pretences,
and
wilful damage to
the
wire
cage;
but
it was felt
that
none of these could
have been sustained. Sympathetic though
the
Court was
towards
the
prisoner's circumstances,
the
criminal law
could
not
be strained so
that
the
probation officer could
help him officially.
For
this reason,
the
magistrate came
to his decision reluctantly
and
expressed
the
hope
that
the
accused could be assisted in some unofficial way.
A
BLEMISHER
OF
THE
PEACE
On 12th March 1949
Arthur
Lawrence Banks was
charged
at
Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court before Mr. F. J.
Powell, Metropolitan magistrate, with using insulting
To continue reading
Request your trial