BAUME'S RELEASE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 58, 2 December 1926, Page 12

BAUME'S RELEASE

the magisterial inquiry MR. ELLIOTT’S COMMENT COMMISSION TO BE PRESSED FOR It was made clear by the Rev. Howard Elliott in a state. £ meat yesterday that he does not intend to abandon his claim for a Royal Commission into all the charges he has made in connection with recent Prisons Board releases, including that of Baurae. Ho stated that he would press for it by every means in his power.

“The report of the Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. Riddell, on the inquiry into the alleged breaches of the prison regulations has disappointed no

one,” said Mr. Elliott. “The Minister will be satisfied, and the public, contemplating a farce, have received the report in that spirit. The suggestion, however, that some of the charges are untrue must be met with the pointed statement that I can prove with independent and reliable evidence the charges I have made. As to the statement that Baume received only the treatment accorded to other prisoners, I can bring direct evidence that other detainees in the Wellington Gaol who were sentenced to Borstal treatment were not permitted to retain their own clothes, but were required to wear prison uniform, and to work, and were refused daily visits, and did not receive chocolate and tobacco. I am not complaining that prisoners are not being treated after the manner of the old penal svstem; what I do complain of is that the treatment is not accorded to all alike.

•'Outside Inquiry’s Scope.” “It is a matter for comment that the presiding Magistrate should think it necessary to remark on matters tlrat were outside the scope of the inquiry. Tn particular that he should attach to his report the statement that Mr. R. H. Bovs, who appeared for me to protest the illegality of the . inquiry and its farcical character, did . not cross-examine the witnesses. Mr. Boys had made it plain that Lis instructions were to carefully abstain from taking any further part in the proceedings. The Regulations. “With reference to my alleged ignorance of the difference between regulations governing the prison and the Borstal Institution inmates respectiveIv, my reply is that with respect to the legal aspects of the inquiry I consulted leading counsel and seted upon

the advice received; and if the opinion of the counsel referred to were quoted it would be of sufficient weight to impress the people of New Zealand, even though the Stipendiary Magistrate has overruled counsel’s opinion. With reference to the prison regulations, I did not consider my own knowledge sufficiently extensive to base public statements upon it, and my statements were the result of information given me bv those who have had. years of experience in prison administration and the application of regulations. I have been under no misapprehension, and I certainly have not acted in ignorance as I am prepared to prove before a Royal Commission. Further, the judgment of the general public both on the inquiry and on the finding is such that I have no reason to feel distressed on account thereof. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasised once again that my charges had to do with the administration of justice, reflected in the operations of the Prisons Board. I am not so concerned (and neither is the public) in the breaches of the prison regulations as in the release of prisoners under circumstances which suggest in the most palpable manner either favouritism or the misuse of the wide powers enjoyed bv the board. “Not one reason has yet been advanced to justify Baume’s release. It would be more difficult still to justify the release of a man convicted of attempted murder, whose prison experience did not reform him; and it is a

matter of the gravest concern that a prisoner sentenced on five separate charges to two years’ imprisonment on each for offences against girls should be released after nine weeks in prison. I am not saying that it is not possible to furnish an explanation of the release of these people, but I do say that the confidence of the public in the administration of justice in New Zealand will not be re-established until the Govern-, inent has allowed the light of publicity to play upon the operations of the Prisons Board through a Royal Commission; and for that Royal Commission I will press by every means in my power. “It seems necessary to remark again, in view of the messages being conveyed to me,” concluded Mr. Elliott, “that I have no personal feeling in this matter and no ends to serve other than those of the public interests.”