REFORMATIVE DETENTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 April 1922, Page 5

REFORMATIVE DETENTION.

NO APPEAL ALLOWED. EXCEPT TO PRISONS BOARD. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. While giving judgment as to the appeal of Donald Pugh, who w as sentenced at Christchurch Supreme Court to five years’ reformative treatment, on his conviction on a charge of attempted carnal knowledge of a girl seven ye s of age, and who appealed against the length of the sentence, the Court of Appeal (Sir Robert Stout, Justices Sim, Hosking, Stringer and Adams) this morning made a definite pronouncement as to the position taken by the court in regard to appeals from prisoners detained for purposes. The court had come to the conclusion, the judgment ran, that leave to appeal should be 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 recommendation. If, therefore, a prisoner undergoing sentence of reformative detention desired to be released on probation or discharged altogether he should ask the Prisons Board to consider his case, and to make a recommendation in his favor. If the case was one in which such recommendation could not be obtained, then it was not one in which the court would be disposed to reduce the term of reformative detention. When a sentence of reformative detention was imposed, it was not contemplated that the prisoner would be detained for the whole term, for that term 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,” the 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 refusing leave in every such case. If this court entertained applications for leave to appeal in sUch cases, a refusal of leave might be regarded by the Prisons Board as an indication of 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.” Application in this particular case was refused accordingly.