The Police and the Law
| Date | 01 January 1950 |
| Published date | 01 January 1950 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5002300102 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
THE
POLICE
AND
THE
LAW 7
agreeably reduced.
In
October, the
Lord
Chief Justice made an
important statement which will have the effect of reducing in number
the sentences of preventive detention. He reminded the Courts that
preventive detention was not intended to replace penal servitude and
should not be used in that way.
The
Police had not looked on the
new provisions in this light
but
had welcomed them as making more
simple the preliminary procedure and the proof necessary before the
Courts could consider passing such a sentence.
In
effect, the new Act
recognised that there is a type of criminal who is determined to prey
upon society and the only effective method of protecting society is to
put
him where opportunities for committing crime are not open to
him, and, accordingly, reviewed the provisions of the Act of 1909,
bringing them into line with modern requirements and practice. We
hope the statement of the Lord Chief Justice will not influence Courts
too far against the use of the sentences the 1948 Act clearly intends
shall be passed in certain cases.
The
Police and the Law
PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS AS JUSTIFYING THE ARREST OF A • SUSPECTED
PERSON'
Norule of the English criminal law is better known than that which
forbids the admission of evidence that the accused has been con-
victed of previous offences. There are exceptions to this rule as there are
to most rules, and one of the exceptions has been emphasised by the
Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of R. v. Fairbairn (65 T.L.R.
559) in connection with arrest without warrant for offences under the
Vagrancy Act, 1824.
The
reason why the evidence of previous con-
victions is not allowed to be given in the ordinary case is because they
are not considered to be relevant.
If
the charge against a man is, for
example, of breaking and entering a house on January rst, 1949. it is
not relevant to that charge that he was convicted ofbreaking and enter-
ing a house on January rst, 1948.
It
only goes to show thathe is a person
who might be likely to commit an offence,
but
not that he committed
that offence. But when an Act like the Vagrancy Act, 1824, which has
now been on the statute book for 125 years and has been authoritatively
expounded by the Court of Appeal, is in question and it is necessary
to bring a person within the category of a suspected person under the
Act, there is no better evidence that such person comes within that
category than by proving that he has had one or more previous convic-
tions.
This is the gist of the decision in R. v. Fairbairn.
The
Lord Chief
Justice said by way of illustration
that"
If
a man is found loitering in
To continue reading
Request your trial