suffered or pardon received, from holding any military or naval office, or any civil office under the Crown, or other public employment, or any ecclesiastical benefice, or being elected, or sitting, or voting as a member of either House of Parliament, or from exercising any right of suffrage or other parliamentary or municipal franchise (r).

A conviction for any offence, if the sentence is imprisonment for more than six weeks without the option of a fine, disqualifies a person from receiving an old age pension for ten years from the date of his release from prison. If the imprisonment is for not more than six weeks the period of disqualification is two years (s).

The conviction of a child or young person under sixteen years of age is not regarded as a conviction of felony for the purpose of any disqualification attaching to felony (t).

As to the property of the felon. The property of a person convicted of felony may be committed by the Crown to the custody and management of an administrator; or in default of such appointment, to the management of an interim curator, who may be appointed by the magistrates on an application made in the interest of the felon or his family. The administrator or curator must pay his debts and liabilities, and support his family, and preserve the residue of the property for the felon himself or his representatives on the completion of his punishment, his pardon, or his death (u). The administrator has an absolute power of sale of all the felon's property, and a bona fide sale by him cannot be impeached by the convict at any time (w).

(r) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, s. 2.

(s) 8 Edw. VII. c. 40, s. 3, sub-s. 2; 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 16, s. 4. A person in receipt of an old age pension who is convicted of any of the offences as to drunkenness mentioned in Schedule 1 of 61 & 62 Vict. c. 60, is disqualified from receiving his pension for six months from the date of his conviction, unless the Court otherwise directs: 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 16, s. 4, sub-s. 3. As to criminal habitual drunkards, v. p. 440.

(t) 8 Edw. VII. c. 67, s. 100.

(u) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, ss. 9, 18, 21. This does not apply to property vested in the convict as trustee or mortgagee, 56 & 57 Vict. c. 53, s. 48.

(w) Carr v. Anderson, [1903] 2 Ch. 279; 72 L. J. Ch. 534; 88 L. T. 503; 51 W. R. 465.

Persons convicted of felony may be ordered to pay a sum of money not exceeding £100, as compensation for any loss of property suffered by any person through or by means of the felony (x). The power of the Court to order the defendant to pay the costs of the prosecution has already been referred to (y).

Objects of Punishment. It seems desirable to add a few words as to the objects which the law has in view in inflicting punishment upon a person convicted of crime.

It is indisputable that the main object of punishment is to prevent the commission of crime, but there are some differences of opinion as to the methods by which this can best be effected. Broadly speaking, however, there are three ways in which punishment can act, viz., as a deterrent, or by way of reformation, or prevention.

There is one class of criminals, comprising the habitual and the professional criminal, upon whom punishment has very little deterrent effect and who are practically incapable of reformation. It is now almost universally recognised that the only satisfactory way of dealing with this class is by the adoption of purely preventive methods, such as police supervision and preventive detention. At the other end of the scale we find a large class of offenders, principally juvenile, who are capable of education and reformation. For this type of offender the proper method of punishment is that of the Borstal system, namely, Detention . . . under such instruction and discipline as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression of crime" (z). And though instruction and discipline cannot prevent crime, yet with this class of offenders they are a powerful factor in diminishing it, and in a very large number of cases a permanent reformation is effected.

66

Between these two extreme types we get a large body of criminals of various kinds whom, in a work of this kind, it is impossible to attempt to classify, so diverse are their crimes

(x) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, s. 4.

(y) v. p. 379.

and the causes for their commission. With these, at the present time, it seems possible to deal only by such a system of punishment as will in most cases act as a deterrent. There are, of course, many crimes and many offenders whom no punishment will deter-crimes of sudden passion, crimes committed under overwhelming temptation, offenders who commit crime under the belief that detection is impossible, and offenders who from a scientific though not from a legal point of view are not responsible for their actions. under ordinary circumstances and for the mass of mankind there is no doubt that the fear of punishment is the most efficacious deterrent from crime. The influence of education in diminishing some kinds of crime must not be overlooked, but the chief effect of what ordinarily passes for education is merely to give a wider knowledge of the existence and nature of punishment.

But

It remains, therefore, to consider what, as a general rule, should be the nature of punishment so that it may act as a sufficient deterrent. This may be summed up by saying that it must be adequate and it must be certain.

Punishment must in the first place present to the offender sufficient inconvenience and disgrace to outweigh any advantages which he may gain from the commission of the crime. And though punishment by the State is the antithesis of the primitive individual vengeance, yet it must be graded so that its strictly punitive effect may vary according to the nature of the offence. Hence in some classes of cases, as, e.g., in bigamy, the punishment varies with the moral gravity of the offence in the circumstances of the particular case. On the other hand, it is important that punishment should be moderate; probably the alleviation of the severe punishments of former times is to some extent due to the fact that the probability of their infliction caused the sympathy of the jury to be with the offender and often contributed largely to his acquittal. Even of more importance, however, is the certainty of punishment, including certainty as to its amount. It is perhaps one of the most regrettable features of the criminal law that it is almost impossible to predict in any

particular case what amount of punishment is likely to be inflicted. This cannot altogether be avoided, but very much might be done towards making punishment less dependent upon judicial discretion, especially in inferior Courts.

Lastly, it should be noticed that the certainty and adequacy of punishment affect not only the offender but the community generally. Where punishment is uncertain and inadequate there is always the risk that further breach of law will be caused through the persons injured or even the public taking the law into their own hands.

CHAPTER XVII.

APPEAL.

UNTIL 1907 it could not be said that there was any appeal on the merits, by a person convicted, from the verdict of the jury; nor even an appeal from an erroneous decision of the Judge upon a matter of law unless the Judge stated a case for the opinion of a superior Court (a), or the case was one of a very limited class in which relief could be obtained by writ of error or motion for a new trial. This grave defect in the practice of the criminal law was remedied by the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. Under this Act a person convicted on indictment, inquisition, or information, or sentenced at Quarter Sessions as an incorrigible rogue has the following rights of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal:

1. A right, without any leave, to appeal against his conviction on any question of law:

2. A right, with leave of the Judge who tried him or of the Court of Criminal Appeal, to appeal against his conviction on any question of fact or mixed law and fact:

3. A right, with leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal, to appeal against his sentence unless it is one fixed by law. No leave is, however, required for an appeal against a sentence of preventive detention.

The Act is set out fully with notes in Book V.

(a) By the Crown Cases Reserved Act, 1848, any Court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, and any Court of Quarter Sessions could reserve any question of law for the consideration of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (consisting of the Judges of the High Court or any five of them), which could reverse, affirm, or amend the judgment below or mete such other order as justice may require."