“The question whether or not a prisoner ought to be treated as a habitual criminal is a matter entirely within the discretion of the judge of the High court, and this court will interfere with a sentence of preventive custody with productive hard labour only if it is satisfied that discretion has not been properly exercised that is to say, that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify a sentence under section 1 of the Habitual Criminals Act, 1963. The facts must satisfy the sentencing court that (1) the prisoner is a recidivist in crime and (2) it is in the public interest that the prisoner should be kept in custody for a prolonged period. Even though the appellant had held a job for a substantial period immediately before his conviction and had kept out of trouble for at least twelve months, the discretion was properly exercised in this instance. State v Aikins (1966) C.C. 90. SC. explained.