8
under for actual murder. He has already served over three years, and we wrote to the Colonial Secretary recommending the case for the exercise of the clemency of the Crown. Our recommendation has not met with the approval of the law officers of the Crown. It must be admitted that the explanation of what we, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a heavy sentence is to be found in the past career of the prisoner and the previous offences of which he had been punished. In this connection your Commissioners would again call attention to the dictum of Lord Coleridge, that every offence should be considered on its own merits, and without reference to past offences, which have been expiated by appropriate punishment. We do not desire to push this point too far. On the contrary, it seems to us that if first offences may fairly be treated with leniency it logically follows that subsequent offences may fairly be treated with greater severity. Nevertheless, as it seems to us, a sentence of eight years' penal servitude on an old man like the prisoner, for "threatening to kill," is beyond the requirements of the case.
"No. 10,514.—Assault and Robbery, Seven Years.—In this case the prisoner, a man of previous good character, become accidentally associated (while looking for work at Bunbury at about the time when the alleged offence was committed) with a man known to the police. We recommended the case as deserving the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, and we regret that the Attorney-General does not share our view of the matter. Both the Attorney-General and the resident magistrate who tried the case attached great importance to the fact that the man assaulted nearly lost his life. Your Commissioners never doubted the seriousness of the offence, which was indeed apparent. The doubt in our minds, and one which still lingers, is whether the prisoner ever committed the offence of which he was found guilty. Our chief object in calling special attention to this case is to point out what appears to us to be the extreme undesirableness of trying cases of this serious nature in small country townships, where the inhabitants are naturally prejudiced against any stranger who is arrested on suspicion, unless the trial is presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court on circuit, as is the case in all the other colonies. If, on the score of expense, the Government deems it expedient to adopt this system throughout the colony, it might nevertheless be immediately enforced at the centres of population which are connected with the railway system. If the judges of the Supreme Court are unable through pressure of work to find time to go on circuit, the Government should consider the desirableness of appointing a district judge, with jurisdiction in criminal matters, and a limited jurisdiction in civil cases, thus greatly reducing the pressure of civil business, which is now sent up from country towns.
"No. F 3/67.—Forgery, Five Years.—In our comment on this case to the Colonial Secretary, we said:—'This is not so much a case where the circumstances call for any special sympathy for the offender as it is one typical of a class of very long sentences, which, in the result, are neither deterrent, reformatory, nor punitive. What punishment there is falls mostly upon the taxpayers.' We are glad to note that the Attorney-General also regards this sentence as severe, and undertakes to recommend the prisoner for a substantial reduction of the times of incarceration, if her conduct continues good during the next six months.
Nos. 10544 and 10545.—Unnatural Offences, Ten and Seven Years Respectively.—We have directed the attention of the Colonial Secretary to these cases. They are mere lads. The characters of their offences has rendered it undesirable that they should be associated with other boys in the Gaol, while their youth renders constant companionship with older and hardened criminals equally objectionable. On the whole, we are of opinion that it would be desirable to place these lads under police supervision outside the Gaol. They are more likely to develop into useful citizens if they work under police supervision for their own living than if at the cost of the taxpayer they spend the whole of their early manhood in Gaol. In this connection we may state that we are very strongly of opinion that the Fremantle Gaol is a most undesirable and unsuitable place for the incarceration of youthful prisoners. There is no suitable employment for them, and the one hour a week of schooling which they receive is practically worthless as an educational process. We recommend that all offenders under the age of twenty be removed from Fremantle to Rottnest Reformatory, in regard to which institution we propose as a result of personal inspection to offer some comments at a later stage.
"No. 2326.—This is a typical case of a youthful offender (age about twenty) who commenced a short sentence for some trivial offence, and afterwards was flogged for absconding. He appeared to your Commissioners to be rapidly deteriorating physically, morally, and mentally. We recommended his release, and the Executive has been pleased to discharge him from Gaol.
"No. 2595.—This prisoner is a very young man, undergoing sentence for a second offence of robbery. In this case the Commission when writing to the Colonial Secretary, said, 'This prisoner is a very young man. He is under sentence for a second offence of robbery, committed on his previous discharge from Gaol, when he was destitute. Your Commissioners respectfully recommend that this prisoner's friends be communicated with, and that if they are willing to take care of him and remove him he should be discharged.' The Crown Solicitor, commenting on our recommendation, said, 'The Commission apparently recommends that the prisoner be discharged because he is a young man, and has been twice convicted for offences against property. I really do not know what process of reasoning the Commission adopts in order to come to this conclusion.' We are equally at a loss to understand by what process of reasoning the Crown Solicitor deemed it necessary to subject our very serious and specific recommendation to comment, which is only saved from being flippant by being altogether irrelevant. This is one of a numerous class of cases where a prisoner comes from another country, and has relatives, who, in our opinion, ought to relieve the Western Australian taxpayer of the responsibilities of his maintenance. Our recommendation was that those relatives should be communicated with in order that their wishes might be ascertained, and that if they would take care of him and remove him from this colony he should be discharged. We are still of the same opinion as to the desirableness of this course. Some such policy must be pursued in future if this colony is not to continue to be a dumping ground for young ne'er-do-wells from other countries. We had no intention of recommending, and do not recommend, that the prisoner should be set loose upon this community before the term of his sentence expires.
"No. 3376.—Bigmay, Eighteen Months.—This prisoner, who lived unhappily with his first wife, made over to her certain valuable properties in another colony, under the mistaken impression that his wife had the power to return for this consideration to release him from any legal proceedings in respect of his offence of bigamy. Compared with other sentences passed on similar offenders, this prisoner, who bears an excellent general character, appears to have been somewhat harshly treated. In this case the Minister of Lands has, at our suggestion, courteously undertaken to protect the homestead block property of the
