R. v. Midaula Crim. Rev. 193-D-71; 15/3/72, Biron, J.

 

R. v. Midaula Crim. Rev. 193-D-71; 15/3/72, Biron, J.

The accused was one of three men who were together convicted on their own pleas on two counts: of stealing goods in transit and of entering and remaining in the harbour area without lawful business or permission, and they were all bound over on probation for twelve months. Notice to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced was ordered to issue by a another Judge at the High Court and only one man, who appeared before the Court, had been served, the other two were apparently away at sea

            Held: (1) No reviewing tribunal would, I venture to say, interfere with a sentence imposed by a convicting court merely because if the tribunal in question had dealt with the case, it would have imposed a different sentence. A tribunal should, in my view, only interfere with a sentence imposed it the sentence is bad in law, as would be the case for example, if the particular offence attracted a mandatory sentence, or if in imposing the sentence the court erred in principle, or that the sentence award is either so manifestly inadequate or excessive, that it cannot in  

 Reason be sustained, which last incidentally can, I think, be regarded as a corollary of the second case, in that it indicates that in imposing such sentence the court must have erred in principle.” (2) “Although the offences, particularly that of stealing goods in transit are serious, it cannot be said that the order placing the accused on probation was so unreasonable that it cannot be sustained. The accused was a first offender, and all the property had been recovered. There is actually a school of thought that first offenders, except in very serious cases, should not be sent to prison, but be given another chance.” (3) “I am not persuaded that this Court would be justified in interfering with the course taken by the convicting court. It is therefore not proposed to interfere with the order of the District Court.”