Tokens: 13
.
The
difficulty
with
this
approach
,
however
,
lies
in
ascertaining
whether
a
new
law
extending
the
time
that
may
elapse
between
the
two
components
of
recidivism
may
apply
to
a
second
offence
committed
after
its
entry
into
force
or
whether
the
law
should
have
been
in
force
before
the
first
conviction
or
even
the
first
offence
.
The
courts
(
and
also
,
it
would
seem
,
most
legal
writers
)
have
consistently
taken
the
view
since
the
late
19th
century
that
the
new
law
,
in
so
far
as
it
predates
the
commission
of
the
second
offence
,
is
not
retrospective
(
and
hence
does
not
infringe
Article
7
of
the
Convention
)
.
The
offender
,
who
is
or
should
be
aware
of
the
new
law
,
knows
the
penalties
he
faces
if
,
after
its
entry
into
force
,
he
commits
a
second
offence
entailing
his
classification
as
a
recidivist
and
,
consequently
,
aggravating
circumstances
in
personam
.
The
penalty
imposed
on
him
,
to
be
increased
where
appropriate
on
account
of
the
factor
of
recidivism
,
will
not
be
heavier
than
the
one
applicable
at
the
time
when
the
second
offence
was
committed
,
since
by
definition
that
time
will
be
after
the
date
on
which
the
new
law
came
into
force
,
in
this
case
1
March
1994
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O