Johannes v. R. Crim. App. 76 –A-70; -/11/70; Bramble J.

 

Johannes v. R. Crim. App. 76 –A-70; -/11/70; Bramble J.

The appellant was convicted on two counts of forgery c/ss. 333 and 337 Penal Code of stealing by a person employed in the Public Service c/ss 270 and 265 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each of the first two charges and two years on each of the other two and awarded 24 strokes of corporal punishment. The prosecution drew the attention of the court to the fact that there were other similar charges pending against the accused who admitted them and agreed that they should be taken in consideration in passing sentence.

            Held: (1) “While the taking into consideration of other offences is not a bar to future prosecution on them it will be a factor of which account may be taken in mitigation of sentence which may follow such prosecutions. There is need therefore for some certainty at to what an accused is admitting and the proper practice is for the prosecution to make a list showing the nature of each offence, the place and the date (vide R. v. Hicks (1924), 88 J. P. 68). If the accused further signs this list there can be no doubt as to what his admissions are and what offences have been taken into consideration. It sees to me that the proper practice was not followed in this case. In this case the admission is too uncertain and will justify interference by the court.” (2) “As to the conviction for stealing contrary to sections 270 and 265of the Penal Code this comes within the provisions of the Minimum Sentence Act and as the court fund no special circumstances the sentence of 2 years and 24 strokes will stand.” I am however, persuaded that he taking into consideration of other offences had influenced the mind of the learned magistrate in sentencing the appellant to 12 months imprisonment on each of the forgery counts.” Sentence on forgery reduced to 6 months imprisonment.