Reformative Treatment.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 April 1922, Page 1

Reformative Treatment.

PRISONS BOARD SOLE JUDGE

r f)Y TEI.EGHArH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION*

WELLINGTON, April 11

While giving judgment as to the appeal of Donald Pugh, who was sentenced at Christchurch Supreme Court to five years’ reformative treatment on his conviction on a charge of attempted carnal knowledge of a girl, seven years of age, and who appealed arcsnst the length of the sentence imposed, the Court of Appeal (Sir Tt. Stout and Justices Hosking, Stringer, and Adams) this morning made a definite pronouncement as to the posi tion taken by the Court in regard to appeals from prisoners detained for reformative treatment. The Court had come to the conclusion, the judgment ran, that leave to appeal should he refused in every case where the only punishment inflicted was reformative detention. The Prisons Board had power to recommend to the Governor General at any time that a person undergoing a term of reformative detention should be released on probation, or discharged altogether, and the Governor-General may give effect to such a recommendation. If, therefore, a prisoner undergoing a sentence of reformative deten tion desired to be released on probation, or discharged altogether, he should ask the Prisons Board to consider his case and make a recommedation in bis favour. Tf the ease was one in which a recommendation could not be obtained, then it was not in which the Court would he disposed to reduce the term of reformative detention. When a, sentence of reformative deten tion was imposed, it was not contemplated that the prisoner would be detained for the whole term, for that tern was fixed merely as a maximum period, it being expected that, before the expiration of that term, the prisoner will have been found deserving of release, either qualified or absolute. "It is useless, therefore,” judgment

continued, “for this Court to be asked to consider the question of reducing that maximum, and the Court has decided to adopt the practice of refust ing leave in every such case. If this Court entertained applications for leave to appeal in such cases, a refusal of leave might fie regarded by the Prisons Board as an indication of an opinion hostile to the prisoner, and it would thus interfere with the exercise of the board’s discretion. It is better, therefore in the interests of prisoners, for this Court to definitely adopt the practice indicated.