THE WORK OF THE PRISONS BOARD

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 46, 18 November 1926, Page 8

THE WORK OF THE PRISONS BOARD

AIR. ELLIOTTS AIR STATESir,—l, for one, as a member of the audience assembled in the Town Hall to hear the Rev. Father Enright on Anglo-Catholicism, .was disappointed to find so much of the time which could have been better spent in listening to that Rev. gentleman occupied by the Rev. Howard Elliott.. I was both pained and surprised at his attack upon the Government over tho alleged maladministration of tho Justice Department and the appointment of Mr. B. L. Dullard as Controller-General cf Prisons, and I am satisfied that, while the resolution which Mr. Elliott proposed was declared to be carried with only <ne dissentient, a very considerable proportion <f the audience felt too disgusted to ->ote c.no way or the other. Mr. Elliott’s attack in connection with the i elease <f certain prisoners, including Baume, the principal in the fraud perpetuated on the Post Office Savings Bank, seemed to mo to bo inspired by the newspaper which first ventilated tho matter, and whose information is not always of the most reliable character. Mr. Elliott was distinctly unfair in his statements and, for some reason best known to himself, »as evidently determined to disparage the Government for its alleged maladministration of the Justice Department. Ho ought to have known, if he did not, that, since 1910. when the Crimes Act passed in that year, provided for the establishment of a Prisons Board, tho release of prisoners from the gaols of the country is determined not by the Minister in charge of the Justice Department, but by the board itself, of which Sir Robert Stout was the chairman until his retirement from the Chief Justiceship this year. Mr. Justice Stringer succeeded him in that office, and the gentlemen associated with him on the board are men of known probity, honoured and respected oy those who know them, and whose solo desire I venture to say is to give to every man wlio may have fallen into the meshes of the law the opportunity to retrieve his character if, ' in their judgment, his conduct while under detention appeared to justify his release. I do not pretend to have any special knowledge of the treatment accorded to Baume while awaiting his transfer to the Borstal Institution at Invercargill, but I have no doubt the ControllerGeneral of Prisons, if he finds a breach of duty has occurred on the part of any official connected with the gaol, will know how to deal with them. I understand. however, that, during the six, teen years the Prisons Board has been in existence as a quasi-judicial body, its determinations have never been interfered with by any member of any ministry who has had supervision of the Department of Justice. It is no part ot that Minister’s duty to sit in judgment upon, 'nor to revise the decisions of the Whatever responsibility may attach to the release of the prisoners to frhom Mr. Howard Elliott referred on Wednesday, it is grossly unfair on that gentleman’s part to throw the onus on the Minister. Mr. Elliott wishes the public to believe that the Prevention of Crimes Act (Borstal Institutions) of 1921. overrides the Crimes. Amendment Act of 1910. which established the Prisons’ Board and gave them authority to visit the gaols, make inquiry from time to lime 'whether there is reasonable cause for belief that any habitual criminal, or person undergoing a sentence of reformative treatment is .sufficiently re T formed to be released on probation or discharged, and to make recommendations to the Governor-General as to the release on probation, or discharge, of any' person serving a sentence of reformative detention.—l am, etc.. VERITAS.