Continued....
Sergt. Shinton produced the jewellery, money, and cash box. He said that when searched at West Smethwick Police Station the accused had in his possession the lady's watch, the gold albert, two half sovereigns, two five shilling pieces, three half-crowns, two florins, five separate shillings, six sixpences, 22 threepenny pieces, eleven pennies, a farthing, two purses, a flash lamp and a pair of wash leather gloves, two skeleton keys, a small key, and a wooden wedge.
The accused told the Recorder that he had nothing to say to the jury.
The Recorder said he did not suppose the jury would have any great difficulty in making up their minds as to what their verdict would be. But they must bear in mind that the prosecution must satisfy them beyond doubt of the prisoner's guilt. That was their duty. It was not the duty of the prisoner to satisfy the jury that he was innocent. If they believed the evidence it did not leave much doubt. It had struck him as very curious that when the man was searched besides the various articles of jewellery found on him there were two receipts belonging to the prosecutor.
The jury almost immediately found a verdict of "Guilty."
Mr. Bourke intimated that the second charge would be preferred—that of being a habitual criminal.
The prisoner said he was not clear concerning the law on that point and he expressed a desire to have it explained to him before the case proceeded. What was a habitual criminal?
The Recorder said he did not want to give too much of an exposition, but a habitual criminal might perhaps be described, rather than defined, as a prisoner who was habitually committing crimes and was not doing any honest work.
Prisoner: I shall plead not guilty.
The jury had to be sworn again.
Mr. Bourke explained that a Statute of 1908 laid down the procedure for dealing with people who were deemed to be habitual criminals. The main object of the procedure was so that where a person was frequently in trouble and ordinary means failed to correct him, then certain special treatment, not unmerciful, but in his own interests and in the public interest, might be applied. Before an accused person could be convicted very precise things were laid down to be proved. In this instance the fact to be proved would be that this man had been previously convicted as a habitual criminal. The date of that conviction was as long ago as November 26th, 1919. Further the prisoner's record included the fact that between 1907 and 1919 the prisoner had been convicted on nine charges of housebreaking and other offences, with sentences on five occasions of imprisonment and three occasions to penal servitude. Having been transferred to the Birmingham City Mental Hospital from Broadmoor in 1928, he was allowed out on parole, and on one of those occasions—February, 1934—he was found in possession of property which had been stolen in Birmingham. He was removed to Winson Green Mental Hospital on February 20th, 1934. On February 24th, 1935, he escaped from the institution, and on March 30th, 1935, he committed the crime at West Smethwick.
Supt. Challenor produced the consent from the office of the Director of Prosecutions to these proceedings.
Det. Sergt. Dean gave the record of convictions since August, 1907, in several towns and under different names. Following sentences of penal servitude at Sheffield and Merthyr he was in 1919 convicted in Birmingham of housebreaking and of being a habitual criminal, when he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude and five years' preventive detention. The officer gave particulars of his transfer from Broadmoor to Birmingham City Mental Hospital, where he was described as an extremely good patient, useful, and gave no trouble of any sort. In February, 1934, the Birmingham Police suspected prisoner of housebreaking while on parole; when he was before the Court he was discharged and returned to the institution as insane. On February 24th last he escaped, and having had his liberty for 14 days was discharged by the operation of the law.
Chief Inspector Best, of the City Police, also gave evidence; he was in Court when prisoner was convicted in 1919 for being a habitual criminal.
Accused urged that he had been in a mental home for 6½ years, so how could it be said he had been leading a dishonest life.
Dr. J. Humphrey, Medical Officer of Health at Winson Green Prison, said that the prisoner had been under his observation since April 2nd. During the time he had been under his care he had been under observation night and day; there had been no evidence whatever of insanity either in his conduct or his conversation. He had worked hard and quietly and been amenable to discipline and had not shown any evidence of mental disease. It was his opinion that he had been deranged, but quite probably his stay in the Birmingham Mental Hospital did him good. Witness said that he had no doubt the man had had no acute mental illness for a period of years. The doctor said that from his conversation with the man he did not think the accused had the capacity to go straight; he had indulged in a life of crime so long that it had become a habit he could not get out of.
Answering the Recorder, the Medical Officer said in February, 1934, he found the prisoner in the same condition as November.
Asked if these mental lapses occurred from time to time in an acute form, the witness said the man's condition was acute when he was admitted to Broadmoor in 1922.
Prisoner explained that it was his intention when he stole the money in Birmingham last year to escape from the Mental Home. He was satisfied that he ought never to have been put in a home. Prisoner said that he believed he was right in saying that once a man could get away from a place like that for 14 clear days he was automatically discharged according to law. He did manage to get away and when he returned to Birmingham he could get no help because he could not show his labour card. There was no alternative but to do something.
The Recorder said that the jury now found prisoner guilty—as they were almost bound to do. Unfortunately, he had a very long and very bad record. It almost seemed that he had got into a criminal groove and could not get out of it. From his record the very best thing that could happen to him, not only in the interests of the public, but in his own interests, would be that he should be confined somewhere for a considerable period.
When sentence had been passed the accused enquired whether he made the application to the Recorder for a certificate enabling him to appeal.
He was informed that he would get all the information he desired on that point.
Prisoner: Right-o! then.
I'm hoping this timeline below makes sense! It's unbelievable how confusing this has been, albeit a lot of fun. 