Of the 499,177 actually convicted, 482,609 were fined, but only 13,720 went to prison in default of payment for, under modern practice, time is almost always allowed in order to enable defendants to pay (see page 10).

The 77,892 guilty persons who were not simply fined were dealt with thus:

Discharged under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907 48,045
Bound over without order for supervision

9,810

Bound over with order for supervision ..
Sentenced to imprisonment without option of fine
Otherwise accounted for ..

2,978

14,147

2,912

77,892

Juvenile Courts.

The tables of trial before courts of summary jurisdiction include cases dealt with in the juvenile courts. The total number of persons brought before the juvenile courts in 1925 was 29,860, viz., 14,891 children under 14 years of age, 12,910 young persons between 14 and 16, and 2,059 persons aged above 16. Deducting these 2,059, as not being juveniles, and adding 707 children and 2,751 young persons who were dealt with not at Children's Courts but at ordinary Courts of Summary Jurisdiction (either because they were charged jointly with adults or because they were supposed to be above 16), there is a total of 31,259 juveniles dealt with (15,598 children and 15,661 young persons). This total is less than 5 per cent. of the whole number of persons proceeded against for criminal offences.

Of the 27,751 children and young persons brought before juvenile courts (omitting 50 who were not tried summarily) 3,465 (or 13 per cent.) were acquitted; orders without conviction were made against 15,633 (or 56 per cent.); only 8,653 (or 31 per cent.) were convicted. The corresponding figures for persons dealt with by ordinary courts of summary jurisdiction were :-total number of defendants, 632,454; acquitted 52,295 (or 8 per cent.); orders without conviction 68,411 (or 11 per cent.); and convicted 511,748 (or 81 per cent.).

Public Prosecutions.

In 1925, the Director of Public Prosecutions instituted or took over proceedings in 649 cases. In 102 cases the offence charged was murder. In 496 cases the prosecutions were conducted for public Departments or at the instance of judges, magistrates, police or other officials, and in 51 at the instance of private persons; 627 out of 824 persons prosecuted were convicted, and 25 others were found guilty but insane.

The Prerogative of Mercy.

In 1925 there were 10 commutations of Death sentences to penal servitude; 8 remissions of parts of terms of penal servitude or imprisonment as rewards for aid, &c. ; 20 remissions of imprisonment on medical grounds; 20 remissions of fines, 39 of imprisonment, and 8 of penal servitude in simple mitigation; and 5 grants of Free Pardons. 51 of the convicts released upon licence during the year were not required to report to the police during the unexpired portions of their sentences.

Extradition.

Eleven fugitives were surrendered to foreign Governments under the Extradition Acts, and one fugitive from this country was returned from a British Possession under the Fugitive Offenders Act.

Coroners' Inquests.

In 1925, inquests were held on 33,178 bodies. The verdicts were:

Suicides have increased, out of proportion to the increase of population, from 1,314 in 1856 to 4,054 in 1925: if the increase had been in strict proportion to population, the number in 1925 would have been only 2,683. The increase was fairly steady until 1914; during the war there was a sharp fall; but since the late stages of the war there has been a swift rise from below 3,000 to above 4,000.

GENERAL REVIEW.

Of 668,344 persons against whom proceedings were taken in 1925, either for indictable or for non-indictable offences,

84,580 were dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act; 493,325 were fined, of whom only 14,542 went to prison in default of payment;

27,268 were sentenced to imprisonment;

459 were sentenced to Penal Servitude, of whom 27 were also sentenced to Preventive Detention as Habitual Criminals;

30 were sentenced to Death.

Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.

The number of persons accorded the benefits of this Act in 1925 is made up as follows:

The total number dealt with under the Act, 84,580, is nearly 5,000 higher than the total number for 1924, 79,853. Of 32,370 persons bound over on probation, 15,064, or rather less than half, were placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer.

Of 50,583 persons guilty of indictable offences, nearly half, namely 23,747, were dealt with under the Act. Of 560,501 persons guilty of non-indictable offences, only 60,833 were dealt with under the

Act; the smallness of this proportion is mainly due to the fact that so many non-indictable offences can be suitably dealt with by inflicting a fine.

The beneficent possibilities of the procedures authorized by the Act are universally recognized. As time goes by, it may become possible to analyse the records of persons convicted, with a view to elucidating the effect upon some offenders of having been dealt with under the Act. Some potential offenders may be encouraged to persevere in evil courses by the thought that, even if found out and proceeded against, they may only be bound over; and some of those who are bound over may take advantage of what they may regard as foolish leniency; but these latter, if they are not simply discharged but are bound over, should remember (especially if warned by the Court) that upon breach of the conditions of the recognizance they may be sentenced, not only for any new offence, but also for the original offence.

Fines.

In 1925 the number of persons fined, whether by Courts of Assize or Quarter Sessions or by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and whether for indictable or for non-indictable offences, was 493,325. Of this huge total, only 14,542 went to prison (against 83,855 in 1899), many of the others having avoided imprisonment by taking advantage of the modern system of allowing time for payment of fines. This system has abundantly justified itself. It increases respect for the law, by securing the real object of imposing a fine, namely payment; it avoids inflicting upon many petty offenders the unwarranted hardship and degradation of imprisonment; and it not only saves society the cost of their maintenance in prison, but brings in a small contribution towards the expense of coping with minor offences.

Even among the proportionately small number of 14,542 persons who in 1925 went to prison in default of paying fines, there were 3,464 who, . before committal to prison, had been allowed time to pay. As regards the other 11,078 persons imprisoned in default of payment, reference may be made to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, under which a Court of Summary Jurisdiction cannot commit a person to prison forthwith in default of a fine, unless he has means to pay at once, or does not desire time to pay, or fails to satisfy the Court that he has a fixed abode within its jurisdiction; or unless the Court, for some other reason, expressly directs that no time shall be allowed. It may be added that after a person reaches prison, all or part of the fine may be paid and the term of the imprisonment thereby be shortened or ended. Advantage is often taken of this provision; many persons pay their fines immediately upon reception in prison, or secure earlier discharge by part payment.

Imprisonment and Penal Servitude.

The number of sentences of Penal Servitude passed, and the length of sentences of Penal Servitude and of Imprisonment, tend steadily to fall; see the following table, which brings together figures showing how offences were dealt with in 1899, in 1913 (the year before the War) and in 1925—

SENTENCES, &c. IN 1899, IN 1913, AND IN 1925.

It will be seen that between 1899 and 1913 there was an increase in the number of sentences of Penal Servitude that were passed, and an increase both in the number and in the severity of sentences of Imprisonment. The chart on page 1 shows further that, towards the end of that period, namely in 1908, the increase in indictable offences known to the police, which had set in after the Boer War, was checked. Doubtless this check was mainly due to deep underlying causes, but the mode in which offenders were being dealt with may have played some part. During the period since 1913, on the other hand, the chart on page 1 shows that there has been a marked increase in indictable offences known to the police, while the table above shows that fewer persons have been sentenced to any punishment at all (e.g., in 1925 only 28,307 were sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, against 65,098 in 1913), and that the most severe sentences passed are less severe than the most severe that were passed in 1913 (e.g., in 1925 no one was sentenced to more than 10 years penal servitude, while 8 persons were so sentenced in 1913). But in the interval since 1913 there has been the Great War, a cause much more far reaching in its effects upon behaviour than any change in the attitude of Courts towards crime.

As regards the increasing use made of the Probation of Offenders Act, and the passing of shorter sentences, it may or may not be the case that potential or actual criminals who realise the modern tendency to leniency take advantage of it. One thing at any rate is clear. If short sentences are passed, not only on less hardened offenders but on persons of criminal habits such as burglars, bandits, coiners, pickpockets and false pretenders, these inveterate offenders will have more frequent intervals of freedom, and therefore more opportunities of crime.

Six years after the Boer War the increase in indictable offences was checked, and it may perhaps be hoped that in like manner the similar increase which has occurred since the Great War will soon be arrested.