Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 October 1938 |
| Published date | 01 October 1938 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3801100402 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent Judicial Decisions
HABITUAL
CRIMINALS
R.v.
Trqpt
and
R.v.
Vak
WIT HIN the past few months there have been two cases
before the Court of Criminal Appeal in which the
question to be decided was as to the correct procedure to
adopt in dealing with an " habitual criminal "under Section
10 of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908.
Subsection 4 of that Section runs as follows:
" In the proceedings on the indictment the offender shall in the
first instance be arraigned on so much only of the indictment as charges
the crime and if on arraignment he pleads guilty or is found guilty by
the jury, the
jury
shall, unless he pleads guilty, to being an habitual
criminal, be charged to enquire whether he is an habitual criminal and
in that case it shall not be necessary to swearthe jury again
....
"
It
may be helpful at this point to refer also to the case of
R. v.
Hunter
(1921, IK.B. 555) in which
Lord
Reading, C.].,
explained that the charge of being an habitual criminal was
not a charge of an offence,
but
the stating of a condition which,
if proved, would enable the Court to deal further with the
prisoner.
The
only jury which could entertain a charge of
being an habitual criminal was the
jury
empanelled to try the
main offence.
The
first of the two recent cases referred to was that of
R. v. Triffit, Here the prisoner at Quarter Sessions pleaded
guilty to several counts in an indictment. Thereupon his
antecedents were given in evidence and he was sentenced to
5 years' penal servitude. He was also charged with being an
habitual criminal,
but
the Deputy Chairman directed that this
charge should be heard by another Court and by a fresh jury on
393
394
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
the grounds that the prisoner would otherwise be prejudiced
by his character being known. Consequently the indictment
charging him with being an habitual criminal was heard the
following day before a different chairman and jury. He was
found guilty and sentenced to 5years' preventive detention.
He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and his
appeal was allowed and the conviction last mentioned was
quashed on the grounds that the procedure adopted was not in
accordance with that laid down by the Prevention of Crime
Act.
In
the second case, R. v.
Vale,
the prisoner appeared at
the Central Criminal Court and pleaded guilty to two indict-
ments containing charges of blackmail, stealing, forgery and
false pretences. He was also charged with being an habitual
criminal.
The
procedure adopted here was that in the first
instance the prisoner was
put
up and asked to plead to the
substantive charges. On his pleading guilty nothing further
was done,
but
he was sent to another Court, where he was
dealt with both on his plea to the substantive charges and on
the charge of being an habitual criminal of which, by that
Court, he was found guilty. He was sentenced to 5 years'
penal servitude and 5 years' preventive detention.
Months out of time for an appeal he applied to the Court
of Criminal Appeal for an extension of time in which to appeal,
basing his case on the decision delivered in R. v. Triffit,
The
application was refused, and in delivering the judgment of the
Court, Branson, J., distinguished the two cases and concluded
his judgment with these words:
" One sentence in the judgment of Humphreys,
J.,
in delivering
the judgment of the Court in R. v. Triffitt read by itself looks as if the
Court had decided that the trial of the charge of being an habitual
criminal must always follow immediately upon the conviction or plea
to the substantive offence.
'Follow
immediately' means dealing with
the casewithout hearing the man's previous history and before sentencing
him.
In
the present case, the plea of guilty having been taken, all
other proceedings were adjourned, to be dealt with by another Court.
That
seems to me and to this Court a perfectly proper procedure in
dealing with cases of this kind, and in this case it would be of no use
extending the time.
The
application must be refused."
To continue reading
Request your trial