" RABITUALS."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 864, 9 July 1910, Page 6

" RABITUALS."

IMPORTANT DECISION GIVEN. I PRISONER ARGUES OWN CASE. !.' POWELKA'S.APPEAL ALSO TAKEN/ | Tlie law- relating to : habitual crimi- ! aals was submitted 'to the opinion of-the : Court of' Appeal-yesterday- and tho in- ; terpret-atioh given unanimously by tho i Court has an. important bearing on the : treatment of,criminals.; . '

An Auckland, prisoner, appeared in Court, in .the ".custody 'of a warder, to argue an appeal, against ".Mr; Justice' Edwards's'.interpretation'of"'the Jaw indeclaring, liiiu to be a-habitual criminal. There were 011 the. Bench: The Chief Justice (Sir Kobert--Stout, K.C:M.G.), ilr. Justice' Williams, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr'. Justice Chapman. ■Mr. J. "\\ r . Salihond, Solicitor-Gen-eral, and Mr. H. H. Ostler, appeared for tho Crown.

The appellant, John Majbribanks Steele,' having written to the Minister for Justicb from the Auckland gaol, was .granted permission to appear be-' fore -the Court of Appeal and argue his own case.

What the Act Says. Mr. Salmond opened ' the argument, Steele preferring not to address the ■Court first. Mr. Salmond said that jtlio 'case involved the interpretation, of ISeetion 29, lb of tlio Crimes Act, *1908, which provided:

Where any person is convicted on indictment of an offence of any of the clashes of offence hereinafter mentioned, the following provisions shall have effect:

M r here such conviction is in' respect of an offence included in Class 2 hereinafter mentioned and such,. person has .been previously convicted on .at least' four occasions of any offence mentioned ; in Classes 1 or 2, .whether of the same description of offence or not,- tho Court may, in its discretion, declare that' such person is-'a habitual criminal. . .

The .facts ot the present case, said ;Mr. Salmond, were , that Steele, on Feb-ruary-2, 1909, had been sentenced to ! two years' imprisonment, concurrently 'on each 'of nine charges. The,. Chief : Justice: Some of ,the charges were really one charge. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is so. Mr.-Salmond: There are' five distinct charges.

Continuing, Mr. Salmond said that .there .were nine-distinct offences, which ,T\ere divisible into, two "groups—one .of four, and one of five. On five ,of the charges, Steele had been committed for ■sentence .by: a 'magistrate on December 18, 1908, and on four others lie was similarly committed for sentence .by the I magistrate at another place, on Decemi. 1 I®®-' The question avas j whether, when lie. was so sentenced, he had b'een previously convicted of four .offences, within the meaning of the (Act. Interpretation by the Crown. The;. Chief Justice: He was sentenced on more than four; the only point turns on what is the • meaning of tho term ."occasions." , ' , ■

Mr.Salmond: He was previously convicted on May. 27,, 1907, in the- Supremo Court at Auckland. He was ar- , laigned oil four separate indictments. He pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to IS months' imprisonment. I arguo that these are four "occasions 11 on which he was convicted. , Thov all happened on ono day,'and it would be absurd ,to.,.make a distinction> between, . arraignments, that are taken on one day and arraignments that are taken. on successive .days. Mr. Salmond remarked that the term ' conviction" was admittedly ambigu- ; ous in ..the strict common law meaning | A conviction necessarily included a judg;ment;.' tho ; mere verdict of. a jury , was not a conviction. It was clear that tho word, as used in the section, did not ; include the sentence.. "Convictions" might be'of three kinds: (1) A Verdict of "Guilty" ; (2) a plea of "Guilty" ; and (3) a committal for sentence by ! a magistrate, under Section 176 of the Justices ,of the Peace Act. The word 'occasion" meant ''even';," "time," or "occurrence," and the question was whether, when Steele pleaded guilty on four separate indictments on May 27, ■ 1907, he'was then convicted "on four previous occasions." Counsel argued ; that there could be five convictions against a ,person on one day, and on the last of them the prisoner cffuld be declared an habitual criminal on' the ground that ho had ■ been four times previously convicted. It- was not'intended that tho habitual criminal section should "apply only in cases showing a career of crime—the only stipulation made by the statute was .that there should be four previous convictions. Prisoner Argues His Case. The prisoner, Steele,., commenced by asking the'indulgence of the Court if he should not follow strictly the lines of court argument. He was inexperienced in court matters, and, on the only two occasions of his appearance before tho Supreme Court, somebody else had done all the "talking" required. (Laughter.) He had not been able to obtain counsel to conduct lii£ appeal. •

Ho wished to point out that he- had been sentenced on two occasions only —May 27, 1907, and February 2, 1908. The point was-whether the words "four charges" were synonymous with the words of the Act, "four occasions." He believed that the rule which guided the , draftsmen in framing the statute was that the Act should be. clear, intelligible and consistent. Three points should have been kept in mind in drafting the law—(1) The. words must be used in their common meaning: (2) the same words must be used for the same things; and (3) different words must be' used for different things.. He wished to apply those three rules to the present case.

Counsel for the Crown, he continued, had said that "tho prisoner had been arraigned on four separate indictments." The law said nothing about "four indictments," but referred to "four occasions."