HASHAM v. R. Crim. Rev. 46-D-70; 26/8/70; Biron J.

 

HASHAM  v.  R.   Crim.  Rev.   46-D-70;   26/8/70;    Biron  J.

The accused was convicted on his own plea of breaking into a building with intent to commit a felony c/s 297 of the Penal Code.  He had been charged together with another man who in separate proceedings was convicted on this and another charge of stealing and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and 24 strokes of corporal punishment. The building concerned was the National Bank of Commerce. The manager’s office was entered and an   attempt made to open the safe but nothing was stolen. The  accused was a first offender, aged 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence and was a student. The Probation Officer strongly recommended probation. The Magistrate in accepting this recommendation said “The accused is a first  offender…it would be unwise to send him to jail where he is going to meet his friend and learn new tricks. It would be reasonable to keep the accused on probation for 12 months. He should report to the Probation Officer once a week.” The Director of Public Prosecutions sought the enhancement of sentence describing the probation order as “woefully inadequate”.

Held: “Here we have a youth of eighteen years of age, committing, it must be stated without qualification, a serious offence, but under the influence of an older man and a criminal, given a good character by the Probation Officer and incidentally  nothing was in fact stolen and the Magistrate acceding to the request of the Probation Officer, placed the accused on probation giving very good reasons for so doing. One of the main objects of punishment is the reformation of the individual convicted in order to make him a good citizen. The magistrate directed himself that the accused, if he went into jail and associated with this man freemantle would, to quote him “learn more tricks”. Apart from that, association with hardened criminals by a youth on the circumstances of this case is hardly calculated to ensure that the accused comes out of prison a good and honest citizen. The Magistrate exercised his discretion properly and it was based on a very firm foundation and ground advanced by the Probation Officer.” Probation order confirmed.