SUPREME' COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1494, 17 July 1912, Page 4

SUPREME' COURT.

\ .'" "NOT FOR PROBATION." ■,:/ ", "REVENGEFUL. ACT." I At the. Supreme' Court yestordas-, when sentencing .Joseph Shanley on a charge 6f : arson, liis Honour Mr. Justice Cooper. delivered some remarks concerning the scope of the First Offenders' Prdbntion Act. The prisoner had , pleaded guilty at Wnnganni \o a charge of having set fire to! a stack of hay. Sentence had been deferred by his Honour, who had stated that he would consult the other Judges regarding the ease. His Honour said that ho had since .consulted the other Judges, and that they had agreed with him that tho caso was not one for probation. Prisoner, continued: his Honour, had bv his act caused damage to tho extent of .£l2O, and had explained his act.' by saying that he thought that the owner of the hay had wronged some other person, and so prisoner had fired the hay out of revenge. It. was true, that the probation officer had recommended that the prisoner should be admitted to probation, but that officer had,said that, though prisoner was of somewhat: weak intellect, lie (prisoner)' knew the' difference between right and wrong-. 'The First Offenders' Probation Act was not ■ intended for cases of this description. One had to consider tho interests of the public as well a,s tho interests of the prisoner, and it did not seem that it was in the public intorest that a person guilty of a revengeful act of this kind should be allowed at liberty without having'undergone some period of disciplinary treatment. Under the Crimes Act, 1910, his Honour said, he had authority to sentence prisoner to undergo an indeterminate period of detention. Prisoner would be, sentenced to undergo reformative treatment at Inyercargill for a period not exceeding three years. With the • approval of the Prisons Board prisoner could bo Teloased before, tho three years had elapsed His Honour said that he would have sentenced Shanley at Wongariui. but for the strong recommendation which had beonniade by the probation officer. However,, all the Judges were a°reed that the .-prisoner ought not to- bo granted probation.