Adam s/o Athumani v. R., Crim. App. 802-D-66; 5/4/67; Biron, J.

Adam s/o Athumani v. R., Crim. App. 802-D-66; 5/4/67; Biron, J.

Accused was convicted of housebreaking, stealing, and forgery upon evidence that on 17 July 1966 he was found in possession of an obviously altered rate receipt stolen from the complainant’s house on 1 May 1966. Eighteen shillings had also been stolen. On the day of the instant conviction, accused was also convicted on an unrelated charge of housebreaking. Because of the latter conviction, he was not treated as a first offender with regard to the Minimum Sentences Act, 1963.

            Held: (1) The evidence of the possession of the stolen rate receipt, in the absence of any explanation at all, fully supports the conviction under the doctrine of recent possession. (2) The unrelated conviction occurred after the commission of the instant offense and does not constitute a previous conviction so as to disentitle accused from treatment as first offender under the Minimum Sentence Act, 1963. Therefore, the court was empowered to consider whether special circumstances justified imposition of a sentence less than the prescribed minimum (Minimum Sentence Act, 1963,s. 5(2). The proceedings were remitted for such consideration.