Saveri s/o Paschal v. R., Crim. App. 418-M-69, 15/9/69, Seaton J.

Saveri s/o Paschal v. R., Crim. App. 418-M-69, 15/9/69, Seaton J.

The appellant was charged and convicted of burglary and theft c/ss 294(1) and 265, Penal Code, and received the minimum sentence of 2 years and 24 strokes on the first count and 6 months on the second count to run concurrently.

            Held: “As to the sentence, the appellant had 4 previous convictions for offences involving either housebreaking, stealing or receiving stolen property. The appellant is only 19 years of age according to the charge – sheet. The list of previous convictions dates from 1963 when the appellant must have been only about 13 years of age. In 1963, he was sentenced to four months imprisonment for stealing. It is possible that this history of convictions indicates the undesirability of sentencing first offenders of prison and particularly when they are young offenders. The appellant was hardly out of prison after his first offence when he was sentenced in 1965 to two years’ imprisonment and given the statutory 24 strokes for housebreaking and stealing. Then in 1966, he was again sentenced to the statutory minimum of 2 years imprisonment and 24 strokes for receiving stolen property and in 1967 he was given a similar sentence for house breaking and stealing. It would therefore seem that the appellant must have been continuously going into or coming out of prison since 1963 with very little period of civilian life in between. Learned State Attorney has urged the Court to consider the previous convictions and enhance the sentences of two years and 24 strokes corporal punishment on the first count of burglary and six months

Imprisonment passed on the second count to run concurrently. Learned State Attorney in asking for his enhancement conceded that the appellant may be reformed, society should be protected for a rather longer period from the activities of the appellant. The trial magistrate appeared to have been influenced by the appellant’s plea in mitigation that his father and grandmother with whom he lived are very old and the appellant is the only one responsible for them. It also appears that the learned magistrate was inclined to impose an even lighter sentence but for the fact that it was a scheduled offence and he had no power of discretion. This Court must consider whether the learned magistrate proceeded on a wrong principle or whether the sentence is so manifestly inadequate as to warrant interference by this Court. I cannot see that the magistrate has followed any wrong principle. It is not mandatory that court should impose a severer sentence upon a person previously convicted. A court which has tried the case and has had the advantage of seeing the accused may be influenced by his youth or the trial court may feel that the previous punishments have had some effect in changing the attitude of the person convicted. However, I think that the learned state attorney is correct that in regard to the present appellant, the previous punishments have failed to have any effect upon him and that here is little hope that the sentence of two years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes corporal punishment will have any greater effect in persuading the appellant lead an honest life than the three previous sentences of the same nature. Accordingly, I would agree that the sentence is manifestly inadequate in the sense that the accused being apparently accustomed or determined to living upon other’s property, society should be protected from him for a longer period of time. Hence, I will enhance the sentence on the first count to one of three years’ imprisonment and the statutory 24 strokes corporal punishment and the sentence on the second count to one of twelve months’ imprisonment, both prison sentences to run concurrently.”