EACH CASE CONTAINS A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS, THE SENTENCE IMPOSED, THE JUDGE'S REASONING, AND A COMMENTARY WHICH CITES APPLICABLE ENGLISH LAW. THE FIRST CASE CONCERNS A SENTENCE WHICH COMBINES BORSTAL (REHABILITATIVE) TRAINING WITH A DEPORTATION ORDER; THE SECOND INVOLVES COMPENSATION FOR STOLEN PROPERTY WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS RETURNED UNDAMAGED; AND THE THIRD INVOLVES THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXTENDED SENTENCE FOR A CRIME COMMITTED WHILE A FELON WAS ON PROBATION. IT ADDRESSES THE QUESTION OF WHEN A SENTENCE ACTUALLY ENDS: THE DATE THE PRISONER IS RELEASED ON PROBATION, OR THE DATE ON WHICH THE FULL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE EXPIRED. IN THE TRADE DECEPTION CASE THE PRECEDENT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A JUDGE WHO HAS AN ADVERSE OPINION OF A DEFENDANT WHICH MAY COME INTO PLAY DURING THE SENTENCING MUST MAKE THIS ADVERSE OPINION KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE SO THAT THE ACCUSED HAS A CHANCE TO REBUT. THE PSYCHOPATHIC OFFENDER CASE AFFIRMS THAT THE COURTS DO NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SENTENCE A PERSON TO A SEVERE TERM FOR A MINOR OFFENSE JUST TO 'KEEP THE DEFENDANT OUT OF TROUBLE FOR A WHILE.' IT IS MAINTAINED THAT MENTAL COMMITMENTS ARE THE PROVINCE OF THE CIVIL COURTS AND THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES. THE FINAL CASE UPHOLDS A SEVERE DETERRENT SENTENCE FOR A JUVENILE CONVICTED OF SEVERAL PREVIOUS FELONIES. THE TEXTS CONTAINS CASE CITATIONS. (GLR)