Roberts, C.J.

The mother of the second defendant wrote to me, asking that I should reduce the sentence of six months imprisonment ordered against him by a magistrate in Seria on 20th April, 1996.

I have called for and examined the record of proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, under section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This section empowers a judge to examine the record, in order to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of the magistrate.

CHARGES.

The defendant was jointly charged with Adee Haslee bin Rosli (17 years) in the following terms -

"That both of you did on 21st January, 1996 at about 0300 hours at G11/17A, Lorong 11, Panaga, Seria, Brunei Darussalam, committed the theft of -

1. 1 Video Player with remote

2. 1 Camera

3. 1 Cordless Telephone

4. 4 Pairs of Silver Earrings

5. 3 Silver chains with 4 Pendents

[Page 2]

6. 1 Silver brooch,

Belonging to Md Zaid bin Md Ali valued at B$1,160.00 and that you have thereby committed a theft punishable under section 380 of the Penal Code.".

The first defendant was also charged with theft in a dwelling of a cassette player on 13th April, 1996.

The facts put before the Court were as follows -

"On the 21st day of January, 1996 at about 2140 hours after performing the Tarawih prayer, both defendants went to Seria town to buy cigarette and then to Kampong Baru to play snooker until 0230 hours. After that both defendants went back home at Lorong 11, Seria. Both defendants intended to commit theft at the nearby area. At a house No. 17/A, G/11, Lorong 11, Seria, both defendants took one cordless telephone, one camera, one video tape player, one wrist watch and some jewelleries from that house. After that both of them went back home, the stolen properties such as the cordless telephone, the video player, the camera and the wrist watch kept by Ariwan (2nd Defendant), whereas the jewelleries were kept by Adee Haslee (1st Defendant. All the properties recovered. On record - Both defendants have previous convictions.".

Section 380 of the Penal Code deals with theft in a dwelling house, the maximum sentence for which is 7 years imprisonment.

These facts were admitted to be correct by both defendants, who pleaded guilty to the charge. The second defendant (Md Ariwan) was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. The first defendant received the same sentence.

The second defendant was remanded in custody on 17th April, 1996, having been released from prison the day before.

The magistrate was told that the second defendant had three previous convictions. These included convictions for theft.

The magistrate took this into account, giving credit to the second defendant for his plea of guilty and for his age, the second defendant being 19 at the time for the offence.

[Page 3]

The second defendant was first convicted of theft in a dwelling house, contrary to section 380 of the Penal Code on 10th February, 1992, when he was only 15. He was then bound over.

On 6th March, 1996 he was sentenced to two months imprisonment on each of two charges of theft contrary to section 379 of the Penal Code; presumably the sentences were concurrent, though the record form of the second defendant does not say this.

D2's sentence of 6 months imprisonment was to run from 17th April, 1996, the day on which he was taken into custody for this offence.

In spite of the second defendant's youthful age, he has three previous convictions for theft or theft in a dwelling house.

He was given an opportunity to reform when he was bound over in 1992. Not surprisingly, he was given a short custodial sentence in March, 1996.

Unfortunately, as the magistrate rightly commented, the second defendant has not learnt from what happened to him in the past.

Theft in a dwelling house is a serious offence, with a maximum sentence of 7 years.

In spite of the second defendant's age and his plea of guilty, I do not consider that the magistrate was unduly severe and I confirm the se