SALAMAN CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 16 January 1931, Page 5

SALAMAN CASE

REVIEW OF SENTENCE

CABINET TO CONSIDER (By Telegraph—Press Association) FEILDING, 14th January. A review of the sentence of imprisonment for manslaughter passed on Mohammed Wally Salaman was asked by a deputation of about fifty from Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa, Manawatu and Taranaki, which waited on the Minister of Justice (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe) to-day. The deputation was beaded by Mr J. G. Brechin, of Pahiatua, and generally speakers held that a miscarriage of justice had occurred at the trial. Every speaker gave testimony of wonderful cures wrought, and in every case the patient had been treated without success by medical practitioners. The sufferers seemed principally affected (before Salaman cured them) by skin diseases, goitre, and kidney troubles. Speakers appealed for the release of Salaman in order that be might continue the treatment of those partly cured under his care and that he might carry on his work for the benefit of suffering humanity. The Minister, in reply, said that members of the deputation were apparently very serious and honestly believed every word they had said. He would point out that Salaman had been tried according to the ordinary methods of British justice, had been defended by Mr O’Leary, one of the most eminent counsel in New Zealand, and convicted on the charge of manslaughter by a New Plymouth jury, with a recommendation to mercy. That fact had been referred to as one of tlie reasons for the light sentence. They had to remember that Salaman had been in trouble before in 1927. He was convicted in Auckland, fined substantially, and ordered to come up for sentence if called on. The Minister referred to a statement of the Magistrate at the time. Further, he pointed out, Salaman was not a herbalist. The medicines he gave were ordinary medicines. That fact was proved in the recent case. Tlfe police had seized the medicines, had them analysed, and found they were the usual drugs obtainable from wholesale chemists. It seemed that, so far as we understand medical science, Salaman was not. acquainted with our methods. He did not seem to have the knowledge our doctors were supposed to possess. (Ironical hear, hears). The Minister explained tlie position in regard to Salaman. The exercise of the Royal prerogative was very difficult. The only statutory authority for reviewing the sentence was the Prisons Board. Cabinet could not. intervene. At the same time he felt, in view of the words of speakers, that he would not he doing his duty if he did not lay the matter before Cabinet. (Loud applause). Mr Cobbe told the deputation not to go away with the idea that. Cabinet would intervene. It was a serious matter. The Prisons Board would have to review the case. The usual practice was to review after half a sentence had been served, and tben make a recommendation if’ it was thought advisable.