The "Straightforward" Reading,

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

The "Straightforward" Reading,

The Chief Justice: You say that "four occasions" does not mean "four separate .indictments" ? Steele: Certainly not If the Act intended 'that'four indictments should be necessary to have a man declared a habitual criminal it could easily have said so. It says not . 'four indictments" but "four occasions." I hold that in my case there was really only one indictment. If a policeman in tho country happened to put it on four different forms, -that is an accident. Aji indictment is a process, and there were four counts in .the indictment against me for false pretences.

The Chief Justice: Regarding different people and on different dates?

Steele: Yes. The Chief Justice: Is not that rather against you ? Steele: What I contend is that it'was really one indictment, for those offences.

The Chief Justice: It could have been one indictment.

' Steele: That is the point I want to moke. They might fairly have'been put on one indictment.

51r. Justice Edwards: It should have been one indictment.

Steele: There were four warrants of committal, but that does not mean more than cue committal. Otherwise a man would have to be divided into four nieces. >

Tho Chief Justice remarked that the Court might treat each count of an indictment as a separate indictment. Various offences might be charged on one indictmont. : Steele: But there was only one conviction oii four offences. . .. The Chief Justice :.Ono conviction, no 1 doubt. .... j ■ Steele • asked -why : the Act -did not ■ gay "four., charges,'-' if that-was , the meaning' of the statute. The effect of holding ,"charges" to. bo "convictions" and "convictions" to ■be ■ "separate occasions" was 'that- an accused who had never before appeared in the dock was .liable,to.bo declared a habitual criminal, and- that was contrary-to the intention of : the. Legislature.-'- .If ■ the Act was taken..iii its simple and- straightforward reading,-it was easy'to -under- , stand. Parliament'•providing, "four previous -occasions;'" leaving ' tile matter • to the discretion. of. the. .judge."' "Occasion!'.,' • meant., ,'''th6 : sitting, of . the Court,"' .- and , -tlie Act. '_ .was clear; ' consistent, ' .and : .intelligible. I One might .speak of tlie ."occasion" 'of the battle of tlie Kile, remarking upon all ."incident", of tlie, light as an aweinspiring "occurrence." A solicitor might say': "On that, 'occasion' I ad'dressed the Court 'twice'." In. tho same .way, he said that "on the occasion of his appearance.before-the Court there were four charges." Living Proof of the Alleged Wrong. He was a living proof of tlie weakness in tho interpretation of the Act. Ho had never been a habitual criminal, to belong to which class a man must possess two qualifications: (1) Ho must live by crime; and (2) lie must, of his own free choice,. commit criminal acts, without the pressure" of want/ Unless those two essentials were present, a man ought not to. be-declared a habitual criminal. Mr. Justice Edwards: You had better address those arguments to Parliament, which has defined what, a habitual criminal is. Steele: If there is any doubt as to the reading of tho Ac|, I am entitled to a verdict on this point. Doubt —a. fictitious doubt—has. been set up, but not by me. I never had'any doubt, about the intention of tho Legislature, from'-the moment I read tho Act. Moreover, there was no charge in the indict-, ment about habitual criminality. The Chief Justice: •' That was not necessary. There was no extra punishment given. "A Bolt From the Blue." Steele: By far the most severe portion of this sentence, is the .declaration that I am "a liabitual criminal. The Chief Justice: No doubt. Steele: And I contend that.tho charge should bo made oven if it is decided to be unnecessary... Thoro was no possK bility of defence, ' ' Mr. Justico Edwards remarked that' Steele had not denied tho Court recordsof his previous convictions. Steele': I had no opportunity of defending. myself on the chargc of habitual criminality. ' The Chief Justice: There should have been a separate count in the indictment charging you with habitual criminality? Steele: Certainly. , • The Chief Justice: Tlie Act does not provide for that. . Steele: This came 'u'poil 'mo like a bolt from tho blue —the severest sen-, tence that modern ingenuity has brought about: The depositions do not show that I had been living on the gains of Crime. My first offences were committed night of May 22, the hiornr ing of May ■ 23, 1907, and foiir-and-a-lialf .months after I came but of gaol— under' circumstances which I cannot say anything about in this Court, except that Mr. Waldegravc has tlie matter in hand—l •,, committed, offences on December .3 "and 5. in Auckland, and on December & at Hamilton. There is nothing to show criminality._ 'J'he.v wops committed at one time —in a, single set of circumstances.

Proceeding, Steele said that, if the Act be read as meaning four charges, few men in New Zealand would be free from tho liability. of being declared habitual criminals. After the eighth charge—according to this interpretation—a man must be declared a habitual criminal. If there were eight or nine indictable , charges against a man on his first appearance in Court-, In must be declared a habitual criminal.Consplcucus and a Social Leper. A man who was declared a .habitual criminal became' conspicuous as one ol' the-world's criminals. : Of the* four huu--dred million subjects of the King, he was singled out and branded as a social leper. .

The Chief Justice: I' don't know that we have anything to do with that'. Steele replied that he had not illtended to introduce tho personal element, but it had been made to appear that, he had taken to criniinal deeds as soon as he came out of gaol. He urged that the . intention of. the Legislature was that a man should have four warnings. Modern . .sociologists and legislators agreed that confinement in prison • did not reform- criminals, who were sent to gaol only that society might be protected. A Unanimous Judgment. The Court delivered oral judgment. The Chief Justice said that Steele had pleaded guilty to four separate indictments. for four offences, and the ques-1 it must be looked upon as one "occasions"? .The argument submitted by Steele was that "oceasibn" included the whole four offences, and; that when he pleaded guilty to the-four indictments, it must be looked' upon as one "occusion. 1 ' The Solicitor-Gcncral argued that the four separate acts wore each an "occasion," and that, therefore, tho case came within tho words of. tho statute. The Act did not . mention four "offences," but seemqd to imply that, for it' said four "occasions of an offence." The strict meaning of the word "occasion" was "occurrence," . and the question was whether there had been four "occurrences" on May 27. It had been held in England that a Court sitting of one day's duration could be split up into several parts, and there might therefore be four., "occasions" on one day. . Hie Court might have asked to plead to the first ■ indictment on Monday, to-tho second on Tuesday, to the third on Wednesday; and to tho fourth on Thursday. The crimes of falso pretences had been committed by Steele against' four different men. There were four indictments, four pleas, four offences, and these, in his Honour's opinion, formed four "occasions," even if tho proceedings all happened on one day. Ho held that the. prisoner had been rightly declared a habitual criminal.

Mr. Justice Williams- expressed the same opinion. Hi? considered that the ease was- within both the letter and tlio spirit of the Act. Tho object of the Act, in enabling persons, to be declared habitual criminals, was not punishment —they wero to be committed for reformatory treatment. When sufficiently reformed, they'might bo discharged. Their Honours .Justices Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman concurred in this judgment, Mo Furthar Appeal. Steele "sked for leave 1o appeal to tlio Privy Council. The Chief Justice replied that there was no power to ;j;ivc leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a criminal case. This had been decidcd at the last session of the Court. Mi'. Justice Edwards: You can petition the Privy Council. Tho Chief Justice: This Court has nothing to do with that. Wo cannot grant you leave. , Steele was then taken to the oolls.