Thanks to everyone who has offered comments into the crimes committed and sentences received. I can understand the sentences handed down for the crimes committed were often harsh. However, my brother maintains that some of these men were caught committing serious crimes, such as arson, or committing grievous bodily harm on another, or whatever, but the courts would then downgrade the crime in the records to read that they stole a hat, or a handkerchief, or something similar, in order to give them a lighter sentence - and that our forefathers, rather than being unjustly treated were, in fact, serious criminals. I just fail to understand his argument, and can't see a reason why such a thing would be done. If someone burned my barn down and it was later reported in the newspapers that he had only stolen some articles of clothing, I would be fairly annoyed and would be letting friends and neighbours know what I thought to the court system. But if the whole country was involved in a cover-up along these lines, and everyone was making their opinions known, then I would think it would be well documented in newspapers and books that this was the course of action it had been decided to take in England at the time - and I just haven't found anything saying this in any of the research I have done. Oh, well, it looks like brother and I will just have to agree to disagree - again! Thanks everyone for your insights. Cheers Trish Nowra NSW

Hi Trish, I have to say I do not believe the original crime for which a convict was convicted was changed except in a very few rare circumstances where political interference took place. Convicts were charged in different levels of Courts (Quarter Sessions, Assizes, Central Criminal Court, Court Martial etc) and as far as I am aware were not allowed any defence lawyer. They were allowed 3 character witnesses to speak on their behalf. The time between apprehension and sentencing was often quite long. The original crime was recorded by the police and needed witnesses to verify the circumstances before a convict was charged. I do not see how it would be possible to falsify these records on a country wide basis. It was often the case that if the convict had "friends in high places" to petition on their behalf the original sentence was commuted but the crime remained as recorded. Their past criminal record was very pertinent to the eventual sentence. Several of the early Governors of NSW wrote to England complaining that the "thieves and pickpockets of London" who were sent out in droves were of no use to a fledgling colony which needed skilled labour and healthy robust workers. Their letters implored the Colonial Secretary to send the latter type of convict. This would seem to indicate that the authorities were only interested in emptying the jails and paid no heed to the skills or profession of the convicts, at least in the earlier years. There are also many recorded instances of people deliberately committing minor crimes with the sole aim of being transported to join family already here. My 2 cents worth, Carol