- 6-
course of the affray. That may be so. We are not prépared to say
that it was wrong to regard the fact that a murder was committed. Obviously this was a serious affray and as such it has to be
punished more severely than one which is less serious.
Nevertheless
we think that a sentence of four years' imprisonment was unduly
heavy and the sentences of those two Appellants, the first and
the seventh, will be reduced from four years to three years.
The second Appellant has subsequently been convicted
of manslaughter upon another trial and has been sentenced to ten
years' imprisonment. He has indicated to us that he does not
wish to proceed with the present appeal and that he will content
himself with challenging the sentence of ten years' imprisonment
in the subsequent case.
anxiety.
The case of the fifth Appellant has caused us more
He was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment.
On the face of it, for an offence of this kind, that may well
not appear a heavy sentence. He is, however, aged only 16 and
he has a clear record. There is in the file a report from the probation officer who suggested that the court might even be willing to consider probation in this case. The learned judge,
no doubt for good reason, thought thet probation was not the
answer and that some more stringent disapproval should be
indicated by the sentence passed. However, he did not obtain
any reports of the Appellant's suitability for other forms of
punishment, and we think that this application ought to be
adjourned while we obtain reports from the Commissioner of
Prisons as to the Appellant's suitability for the training
centre or the detention centre.
dismissed.
The appeal of the second Appellant of course stands
17th December 1974.