THE BAUME CASE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 56, 30 November 1926, Page 10

THE BAUME CASE

OFFICIAL REPORT ON THE INQUIRY NO PREFERENCE SHOWN GAOL OFFICIALS EXONERATED ■“The result of this inquiry satisfies me that no such preferential treatment as alleged by Mr. Elliott was given to Baume either when detained in the Terrace Prison or on his joiirney to the Waikeria Institution and that the prison officials treated him while under their charge in accordance with the regulations which applied to his case.”

in these words, Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.i' concludes his report" on the . iliquiry he, as a visiting justice, conducted last week, into allegations made in the Press by.the Rev. Howard Elliott that Sydney Erne baume secured preferential treatment while detained in the Terrace Gaol. . • . "Notice of the time'and place of inquiry, was duly sent on November 18 to the RevJ. Howard Elliott, who, without denying the truth or otherwise ot the allegations, advised me that he would not/appear at the. inquiry," states tho report. -"The inquiry was duly held on November : 23, when the Prisons Department were'represented by Air. Mac--nssey and. Mr. Boys, solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Rev. Howard Elliott, and' objected to the proceedings on the ground that,l had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the inquiry'had been directed by the. Minister of Justice. I .held that' the objection raised was groundless, and duly proceeded with the hearing. Mr. Boys, as counsel for the Rev, Howard Elliott, then intimated that he would fake ho part ih the examination pfr any witnesses tendered by tlie ’Prisons Department.- . ' Sydney Erne Baume .was. received into the Terrace Gaol on the evening of February 4, 1926, and was taken to the Supreme Court for trial .on February 5, and sentenced on February 6 to be detained in a Borstal institution. On February 12 he was escorted along with two reformative .detainees to the. Waikeria Inetitutiou, .Baumo was .- therefore detained at Ihe Terraco Prison for a period of eight days in-all,- or six-days after he wap sentenced. ’ .

Retention of Civilian Clothes,

Allegation 1 is that Baume, while waiting for more thau IS hours for transfer was allowed to .wear his civilian clothes, and keep other personal belongings in his cell, including his attache cash containing his .pyjamas, shaving gear, etc., in contravention of regulation 211.—The regulation referred to does not apply to offenders committed to a Borstal, institution, but applies, to ordinary prisoners. The evidence shows that Borstal detainees are allowed to wear th'eir own clothes if they are to be transferred to & Borstal institution within a reasonable time, and it also shows that Baume was not .allowed to. keep his attache case in hie cell. "Allegation 2: “That Baume was not required to parade with other prisoners.’ —Regulation 9 under the Prevention of Crime (Borstal Institution) Establishments Act, 1924, provides that whilst i> Borstal detainee is kept in any prison he shall as far as possible be kept apart from other prisoners. The evidence shows that Baume was kept apart from other prisoners in accordance with the regulation above-mentioned. "Allegation 3: 'That Baume was not required to get up till after sunrise.’— The evidence on this point is that Bnume was required to get up and did get up at the same hour as other prisoners, viz., 6.30 a.m. Under Doctor’s Orders. "Allegation 4: 'That Baume after conviction was allowed to have eatables other than those provided for in the prisons regulations.’—The evidence showed that eggs and milk were supplied to Baume under the authority of Dr. Gilmer, the prison medical officer. Similar food is given to other prisoners when prescribed by the prison doctor. "Allegation 5: ‘That Baume was supplied with eggs, and that such eggs were delivered to him in his cell by the cljief warder.’—The evidence shows that under the doctor’s orders five eggs were supSlied to Baume over a period of six ays, but th© chief warder denies that he" acted in the capacity of waiter to Baume and I accent his statement. "Allegation 6: ‘That Baume was-kept by himself in the boys’ yard and allowed to sit in the sun.’ —As a Borstal detainee Baume had to be . kept apart from other prisoners, and this was done. Baume was the only Borstal detainee m the prison at the time and naturally ho was placed in the boys’ yard by himself. "Allegation 7: ‘That ‘Baume was not put to work at the Terrace Prison.’— The evidence 'shows that where a Bor•stal detainee is in a prison pending transfer, it is not customary tn require him to do any work nt the rrison. The iifual practice was carried out in Batime’s case. . “Saiing Their Clothes.’’ "Allegation 8: That, Baume was not requited .to dress in ordinary prison garb. That seven or eight prisoners under Borstal sentence at the Terrace I’rison on November 4. 1926, were dressed in prison garb and placed at work.— The evidence in answer to the first part of this allegation is that Borstal detainees are not placed in ordinary prison garb whilst detained in a prison pending transfer to an institution, and in Baunie’s case this practice wiis carried out. As regards the second part ,of the* allegation, the evidence is that only three Borstal detainees were in the Terrace Prison on November 4, 1926, and not seven or eight as alleged. These were not dressed in prison garb, but in hospital blues on account of their transfer being delayed through congestion at the Borstal Institution, and this was done to prevent them wearing out their civilian clothes whilst waiting for transfer. The only work they were inquired to do was io clean the upstairs cell range which they occupied. “Allegation 9: ‘That Baume was kept at the Terrace Prison nearly a rortniglit after being sentenced.’—The evidence shows that Baume was ‘entenced on February 6 and transferred to Waikeria Institution on February 12. Iho delay Was partly due to tho Supreme Court sittings not ending till February 9 and transfers are delayed until the end of tho sittings so that all prisoners for transfer can be escorted at me time. "Allegation 10: ‘That Baume was not required to make his bed I nd that another prisoner was detailed Io make it for him.’—The evidence shows that this allegation is untrue. A Question of Visits. "Allegation 11: ‘That Baume was allowed daily visits in contravention ot regulations 262, 263 ami 264, which were quoted by Mr. Elliott as applying to his case.’—The evidence shows that, the regulations referred to by Mr. Elliott arc prison regulations and arc not applicable to Borstal detainees. Mr. Elliott says that his experience of prisons, prisoners and prison administration’ has extended over eighteen years. If this is so it is strange that a man of his intelligence should be so ignorant of the difference between prison regulations and Borstal regulations. “Allegation 12: That Baume when proceeding on transfer to the Waikeria Borstal Institution, near Te Awamutu. was made the recipient of a well filled hamper, the other prisoners on transfer having to be content with a wrapped up lunch of dry bread and meat.’— The evidence as to this allegation shows that it is customary to allow relatives to supply provisions to Borstal detainees about to be transferred, "nd that Bamne’s hamper was accepted on his behalf on condition that it was shared on the train journey by the two reformative' detainees who were being transferred along with him. Thjs was done gnd the provisions supplied by the prison officials for the journey were not used.

“The inherent purposes of a sound judicial system is to restore the delinquent to the full privileges of social life immediately he or she is fit for such restoration, and that every possible opportunity should be provided to enable those .who have slipped from the path of good conduct to rehabilitate themselves. Whilst stressing the restoration essentials it is necessary to say that it is equally important for the sound organisation of the social life of any community that those in charge of the judiciary shall be above reproach.

“The Labour Party does not in any way associate itself with the hue anil cry which has been manufactured during the past few months; but, in view of the prevalent feeling that there is a possibility of preferential treatment having been accorded to certain individuals, it is of opinion that the Government should make public certain information.

"It. there is ground for suspicion that the power given is to be used preferentially; “If social and financial .influence can be brought to bear on the persons responsible for the administration, then tlie judicial system will become a byword of reproach', and the civil effect on the life of the community will be far-reacliing. "In view of the suspicion, and the dangerous possibilities mentioned, the Labour Party requests the Government to make public the following information :— . “(1) Flow many persons have been ordered to be detained under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1924 ? “(2) The length of the periods for which detention w ; as ordered ? “ (3) How many persons have been released? “(4) The original period of detention ordered for those already released? “(5) The period for-which they were actually detained ? "(6) What reasons were given to the Minister by those who recommended the release ? “(7) Were any conditions imposed before release was granted? j “(8) What conditions were imposed, if any ? “The Labour Party will unhesitatingly condemn any individual, or body of individuals, who administer the law according to society status or financial considerations; but, at the same time, assures the Government that they will support every step that is taken that will give to individuals who have transgressed the laws the right to rehabilitate themselves, and to once more become responsible members of society.”

Magistrate’s Conclusions. "After • consideration of the allegations and the evidence in teply to them, 1 find that some are untrue; other allegations are so trivial that no one with a knowledge of the regulations which apply to different classes cf prisoners or any idea of the value of words would waste time in making them, and nib arc easily explainable when the circumstances surrounding Baume’s stay in the Terrace Prison are made known. It would have been more satisfactory if Mr. Elliott had appeared at tho in-, quiry and produced the affidavits which he- says contained the allegations published by him regardless of their truth or falsity. The fact that be refused to appear and support the statements upon which he relied to show preferential treatment by the prison officials or to listen .to their explanation in answer to his allegations raises a strong presumption that he did not know whether the allegations were true or' false; that he took no reasonable precaution to verify them jind was not in the least concerned whether or not they reflected upon the honesty and integrity of the prison officials. Further comment is unnecessary.” A LABOUR PARTY STATEMENT .The following statement has been made by the New Zealand . Labour Party bearing on the alleged preferential treatmentof prisoners:— "In 1924 the Parliament, of- New Zealand passed an Act the purpose of which was the prevention, as distinct from punishment, of crime. The Act particularly refers to young persons, and. among other provisions, confers on the Minister the power to release persons serving a term of detention. The Minister must first be satisfied that there is a reasonable probability that the offender will abstain from crime, and lead a useful and industrious life, A more far-seeing or wiser measure was never placed on the Statute Book of the Dominion. Provided that competent, wise, and just persons act as advisers to the Minister, their advice should be accepted at once, and no young person should be confined for one day longer than is necessary for is own, or her own, welfare.