Joseph v. R. Crim. App. 218-D-66; 20/1/67; Bannerman, J.

Joseph v. R. Crim. App. 218-D-66; 20/1/67; Bannerman, J.

Accused was convicted of assaulting a police officer, resisting lawful apprehension, and robbery with violence (P. C. ss. 243 (b), 243 (a), 285 and 286). In imposing sentence of three years and 24 stokes on the last count the court relied upon the statement of the prosecutor-unsubstantiated, and challenged by the accused-that the accused had previously been convicted of housebreaking and stealing. As he was led from the courtroom, accused made a threatening remark, and for this statement it was ordered that he be subject to police supervision for two years after completion of his sentence (C. P. C. s. 308 (1) (a).

            Held: (1) An unsubstantiated allegation of a prior conviction, challenged by the accused, will not support an increase in a sentence imposed. (2) Criminal Procedure Code section 308(1) (a) may not be applied in punishment for acts done after sentencing – even momentarily afterward-as it requires the order to be made “at the time of sentencing”. The proper procedure would have been contempt of court.