Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3801100203 |
| Date | 01 April 1938 |
| Published date | 01 April 1938 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
PRISONER WHO HAD
PLEADED'
GUILTY'
TO TWO COUNTS GIVEN
INTO THE CHARGE OF A JURY ON THREE COUNTS
R. v. Darke
THE
appellantin thiscase pleadedguiltyto housebreakingand
larceny and, on
the
following day, was convicted of assault-
ing a police officer whilst in
the
execution of his duty.
He
was
charged, together with another prisoner, on an indictment con-
taining three counts.
The
first two related to housebreaking
and larceny and
the
third
to an assault on a police officer.
When given into the charge of
the
Jury
the Clerk of the
Peace mentioned the first two counts and stated
that
on those
counts both prisoners had pleaded guilty.
In
giving
judgment
in
the
Court of Criminal Appeal
Mr.
Justice Humphreys said:
"
There
is a matter to which
the
Court
thinks it necessary to refer in the
hope
that
it will
not
occur again.
The
two prisoners, having pleaded guilty to
the first two counts of the indictment and
not
guilty to the third count, were
given into
the
charge of
the
jury
on
the
third
count.
The
Clerk of the Peace,
in giving
them
in charge, informed the jury, who may
not
have been present
when the pleas were taken on
the
previous day,
that
the
two prisoners were
charged on an indictment containing three counts, to two of which they had
pleaded guilty.
That
course was quite irregular.
The
prisoners were entitled
to be tried by the
jury
on a charge to which they had pleaded
not
guilty with-
out
any reference being made to the fact that they had pleaded guilty to other
counts.
That
irregularity might in some cases have caused a serious difficulty
to arise with regard to
the
conviction which followed.
In
this case it is clear
that no miscarriage of justice can possibly have occurred, because
the
appli-
cant at
the
beginning of his evidence himself informed
the
jury
that
he had
committed the offences for which he was being arrested by the Police officer."
BORSTAL
DETENTION
R. v. Naylor
By a proviso of section Isub-section 1Prevention of
Crimes Act, 1908, aCourt before which ayoung offender is
convicted on indictment, before passing sentence of detention
in a Borstal institution, " Shall consider any report or repre-
sentations which may be made to it by or on behalf of
the
145
B
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
Prison Commissioners as to the suitability of the case for
treatment in a Borstal institution."
There
is no need for any comment on
Mr.
Justice
Du
Parcq's judgment reproduced below: .
"
This
applicant, who is twenty-two years of age, pleaded guilty at
Lincoln Assizes to breaking and entering a shop and stealing wireless sets.
When the Judge came to consider the question of sentence, there was before
him a report from
the
Prison Governor
that
the applicant was not fit for
detention in a Borstal institution.
It
appeared, however,
that
the applicant
was not only guilty of the offence of shop breaking and stealing wireless sets,
but
also wished to admit and to have taken into consideration four outstanding
charges.
It
appeared on investigation that the applicant was, as
the
Judge
put
it, one of a party of persons who went about stealing other people's motor
cars, and it occurred to the Judge that he came within the words of section I
(I)
of the Prevention of Crime Act, 19°8, as being a person
who'
by reason of
his criminal habits or tendencies 'should be subject to detention in a Borstal
institution.
It
is, of course, quite clear that, although there may be no previous
convictions against a young offender, the actual offence of which he is con-
victed, or that offence together with other offences in respect of which he
admits his guilt, may be sufficient to bring him within the terms of the section.
The
Judge, accordingly, took the course of asking the Prison Governor what
was the reason of his adverse recommendation.
The
Governor replied:
'I
have no record of previous criminal habits or tendencies.
The
police reported
that there were no previous convictions.'
The
Judge then said:
'Now
you
know that there are four other cases against him, perhaps you have altered
your
mind?
'and
the Governor replied: '
The
man is mentally and physically
fit, and if there are criminal tendencies he is fit for Borstal.'
The
Judge
added: ' I think in future when you are reporting that aprisoner is not fit for
Borstal, if he is physically and mentally fit, it will be well
just
to state the
reason.'
"
This
Court hopes that
the
attention of those whose duty it is to make
such reports will be drawn to what was said by Humphreys J., in this case,
which is repeated by this Court.
It
is for the Judge ultimately to decide
whether the case is suitable for Borstal detention,
but
under the Act of 1908
he must consider any report made by or on behalf of the Prison Com-
missioners.
It
is important, when the report states
that
in the opinion of the
person making it the case is not suitable for Borstal detention,
that
the reasons
for
that
recommendation should be added, so
that
the
Judge may be able to
decide whether the reasons are good or bad and, if necessary, make further
investigation."
MOTOR-CAR
OFFENCES
R.
v. Fowler
In
this case the appellant was convicted of driving amotor
vehicle when under the influence of drink, contrary to Section
15
(I)
of
the
Road Traffic Act, 1930. He was sentenced to six
146
To continue reading
Request your trial