ON PRISON-BREAKING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1045, 7 February 1911, Page 4

ON PRISON-BREAKING.

JUDGE'S ANALYTICAL COMMENTS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Christchurch, February G. An interesting case was dealt with in the Supremo Court to-day. Alfred Prior and William Newton were presented for sentence for escaping from custody. "The prisoners were on the West Coast at the time of their cscape, and were at liberty lor some little time before being recaptured. When asked in Court what they had to gay, both the prisoners replied that they had an easy- chance to escape, and the temptation was so great that they could not resist taking advantage of the opportunity.

His Honour, Mr. Justice Dsnniston, in passing sentence, said that he had never held that the offencc of breaking prison, standing by itself, was one # which should bo treated as any great moral offence. It was a thing that a man did naturally, and its only offence against morality was that it was tho duty of every man to keep tho law. The prisoners had stated the position very fairly when they said they only did what the ordinary man would have done if he had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The offence was not necessarily anything more than a breach of the statutory provision that it was tho duty of every man to obey. On;' the other hand, tho fact that a man would be punished if captured was part of tho legal means of detaining prisoners, just as much as were gaols, cells, and warders. The right to punish escapces was one of the restraints used to prevent escapes, therefore it was the duty of the Court, when administering the law, to give effect to one of the deterrents which tho law had imposed in order to prevent others from escaping. There were various circumstances to be considered when dealing with escapees. A man might commit a deed of violence, or he might escape when taking advantage of some indulgence —a man might escape from tree-planting camps, and thus commit the aclditional impropriety of takiug advantage of an indulgence. The prisoners, however, were in the corridor of a small wooden building, and they broke out of it. That was the sum and substance of their -offence. The Court was therefore entitled to inflict a lenient sentence. The case would be met by the infliction of a sentence of three months' imprisonment, to commence at the expiration of their present terms.