The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1883. The Prisons Act.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1075, 16 October 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1883. The Prisons Act.

A curious commentary on the absurdity, of sothe of the laws .passed by New Zealand legislators was afforded the other day in Dunedin when the first charge brought under the Prisons Act of last session came before the Resident Magistrate, The reason why this measure was considered necessary was that certain Visiting Justices had acted arbitrarily in dealing with prisoners, and had imposed penalties out: of all proportion to the offences committed. Numerous instances of this kind of thing were disclosed in the evidence gjven before the Dunedin Gaol Commission, and it was presumed that what occurred in Otago was not unknown in other parts of the colony, though probably not to the same extent. This new Act therefore curtailed the power of the Visiting Justices and divided prison offences into two classes, namely minor and aggravated. Of these the latter were to be decided by a Resident Magistrate and two Justices of the Peace in open Court, and the accused was to be allowed counsel to defend him. The principle of this seems to be fair enough, for although a man may have committed a crime he should nevertheless be protected from persecution. ,The provision was evidently made under the belief that gaolers and warders looked upon the men under their charge as natural enemies, but though this may have been the case in Dunedin it has not been proved to be so elsewhere. The Prisons Act was in fact a piece of sentimental legislation, and the very first case brought, under it has proved that it will be a source of danger.

In the instance referred to the accused was an old offender named Tait, who was charged with having used insubordinate language to one of the warders, and the Visiting Justices, before whom the man was first brought, decided that it was an “ aggravated ” case, and consequently not within their jurisdiction. Accordingly he was taken before the Resident Magistrate, Mr L N. Watt, but the latter came to the conclusion that the offence was a “minor ” one, and consequently dismissed the prisoner. The question is whether Mr Watt’s reading of the law is the right one, and it he or the Justices had to determine what was the category in which the offence was to be placed, but as the Act is silent on this point it is easy to see that miscarriages of justice will be frequent. As it is, Tait gained a victory, and it is impossible not to agree with the gaoler when he stated that the result of this would seriously affect the discipline of the gaol. But whichever way the Act is read, it certainly appears doubtful if the Legislature has done wisely in enacting that these cases shall be heard in open Court. Mr Watt may or may not be wrong in his interpretation of the law, but it is unquestionable that this man Tait escaped his just deserts on this occasion, although on the following day two Justices of the Peace sentenced him for something arising out of the first offence. The fact, however, remains that if this Prisons Act is not a dead letter, the first experience of its working goes to show that the old system, with all its drawbacks, was m some particulars considerably better than the new.