WHY WAS HE ABSENT?

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12612, 24 November 1926, Page 11

WHY WAS HE ABSENT?

PERTINENT QUESTIONS AT INVESTIGATION OF BAUME ALLEGATIONS

ACCUSER DOES NOT APPEAR DEPARTMENT’S PROCEDURE VINDICATED FROM WITNESS-BOX Because he did not agree with the jurisdiction of the inquiry —which he himself “had demanded—Mr Howard Elliott did not appear at the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday, when the charges of preferential treatment to Sidney Erne. Baume while in the Terrace Gaol in February last were investigated. The magistrate dismissed a protest from Mr Elliott’s solicitor against the jurisdiction of the inquiry, and the evidence of the Department was taken and recorded. It was shown during the evidence that anyone making allegations such as those made by Mr Elliott ’either did not have a knowledge of th'e regulations, governing prisoners, or made them deliberately. This was the construction placed on the case by the magistrate during the hearing.

Prior to, the commencement, Mr R. Hardie B6ys, who appeared for Mr Elliott, said Mr Elliott did not intend appearing. The notice did not require him to do so. He (counsel) had received instructions, however, to protest against the jurisdiction of the inquiry. There was no provision in the statute providing for such a tribunal.

Mr Macassey (for the department): Do I understand that my friend objects to these charges being • investigated ? Mr Boys: I enter a protest against the jurisdiction. The magistrate: Is your position not rather peculiar? You say Mr Elliott does not intend to appear, and then you appear for him. Mr Boys: He does not appear in person. On legal grounds the question of the jurisdiction should be settled. The magistrate: You know that the jurisdiction of the inquiry is under section 17 of the Prisons Act? WHO SHOULD DECIDE? Mr Boys contended that the report of the inquiry would have to be sent to the Minister for Justice, who had instigated. the inquiry. There was no statute to warrant this, however, and there was no such thing as an inquiry as this purported to be. Otherwise the report would have to bo, sent to the Controller-General of Prisons, who was conoerned in the allegations. This would mean that the ControllerGeneral would have to decide what he would do with himself. The magistrate: You are assuming that the report will be sent to the Minister. Mr Boys: The inquiry was instituted by him. The magistrate: Suppose the court sent a report to both the Minister and the Controller-General. Mr Boys: There is no authority to send a report to the Minister; and if it is sent alone to the Controller-Gen-eral, it will be incompatible with the fundamental principles of British justice. Officers of the department would, he said, have to decide what was to he done about the charges against themselves. If this were the case- the inquiry could have but one aim and one object—to whitewash the Prisons Department. Mr Macassey: I protest against that. Mr Elliott should call evidence to support the charges which he has made through the public Press. . The magistrate: Do you mean to say that the prison officials have no right to say whether these allegations are true or not, and that the only person who is .in authority to speak on tho njatter’is, your client, Mr Elliott? ' Mr. Boys : I do not make any such absurd suggestion. .In the circumstances the inquiry is useless.

' DEFINITE SCOPE. ..gvr The magistrate: It does not AffSet the court whether it' is useful or«6sp-.. less. { ". Mr Boys:’ Well, I am representing certain interests and I have to put these interests-before you. This ‘will 1 mean, the enacting of a solemn farce, the. outcome, of which must be so apparent that the Justice Department will be the laughing stock of the country. Mr Macassey: This inquiry is merely into the question of preferential treatment to Baume while in prison—nothing else. '* The magistrate: That is how it Strikes me. It is a narrow inquiry on that issue. Mr. Boys: The allegations of _my client definitely conoern the administrator, of justice. The magistrate: I have nothing to do with the Administrator of tho Prisons Department.. I have to decide whether- the allegations in respect to Baume are true or untrue. Mr Boys: The allegations are not before the court, and will not be. They have been made through tbe Press, hut apart from that they are not before the court. The magistrate: Not yet. “FARCICAL AND ABSURD.” Mr Boys: There is nothing before the court upon' which it can adjudicate. The whole thing is farcical and absurd. The magistrate: If Mr Elliott wanted to make it anything else he should have been present. Mr Boy?: He instructed me to say that he would not he present. Mr Macassey: Yes; quite true. He made his statements through the Press. Mr Boys: He said that before a properly constituted tribunal he was prepared to formulate his charges. The thing will develop into a screamingly theatrical farce if this is not considered . Mr Macassev: You will make it so. Mr Boys: Whether I do or not the fate of it seems to have been decided by Mr Macassey. Mr Macassey: I have nothing to say. Section 17 of the Act is clear. The magistrate: Very well. The inquiry will proceed. . j The inquiry proceeded with Mr Boys as an interested spectator, he taking no part whatever in the proceedings. TWELVE CHARGES Mr Macassey then opened his case, and said there had. been no less than twelve specific charges either made by Mr Elliott at a public meeting or subsequentlv made by him in the public Press. Some might "appear trivial in themselves, but the cumulative effect of these twelve allegations coupled with the assertion that the preferential treatment was due to influence exercised on the officers of the department constituted a serious reflection on the integrity of those officers. It was a matter of the strongest possible comment that the man who made these charges and publicly stated he had sworn evidence to prove them had come forward to face this inquiry.

“There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this action of Mr Elliott’s, which I think will be fully borne out by the evidence,” he went on, “and that is that .the charges which he hae made are absolutely apid unequivocally untrue. I propose to put into the witness box the superintendent of the Terrace Gaol, and every prison officer who head to do with Baume during his detention in the prison, and submit these witnesses to your Worship for any questions that you may wish to ask. “CONTRARY TO FACT” “In regard to. those charges which are laid as constituting a breach of the prison regulations, the answer is simple, viz., that Baume was a Borstal inmate, and that the ordinary prison regulations did not apply. Again, it is a matter of the strongest possible comment that when this fact was nointed out Mr. Elliott reasserted that he was quoting from the Borstal regulations. a statement which he must havp known was contrarv to fact. “The department courts the fullest inquiry, and will nut no obstacle iii the way of the elucidation of any facts that may assist your Worship in coming to a finding. It is unfortunate that there is no one here to act as a prosecutor, hot that will not prevent a full and public investigation of everything that bears in any wav on the charges that have heen made.” Mr Macassey then outlined the charges and proceeded to give the department’s answer to every one. The first witness called by Mr Macassey was Jeremiah Chas. Scanlon, who recently retired from the position of superintendent of the Wellington Terrace Prison. It was during his administration, however, that. Baume was detained there. On. Saturday. February Baume was received "at the gaol under sentence to a Borstal institution, and was kent there till the end ?£ t“ e Supreme Court sessions. On Wednesday, the 11th, he made arrangements for the transfer ofl Baume and two others to- Waikerie, and the transfer was effected with unusual promptitude. DOCTOR’S ORDERS

During his stay at the Terrace Prison Baume was given no preferential treatment whatever, and no instructions were received from the ControllerGe ?if -Prisons or any other authority to accord him preference. j ln i? w ? s a W tate <3 and depressed, and the doctor prescribed eggs, milk and chocolate, declaring this essential to the boy s health. It was not unusual for long sentence .prisoners— to have such foods ns these. Baume was compelled to make his own bed, after being shown how to do it, and in accordance with the rule governing Bors*a1 ’ prisoners, retained his own clothes. Borstal inmates were supplied with pyjamas if they did not already possess them, although thev were permitted- 1 to use their own. The Festal regulations provided that detainees were to be kept apart, as far as possible, from sentenced prisoners, while "they were allowed to receive gifts of fruit and sweets for the journey to the institution. Even prisoners other than Borstal detainees had received such gifts from witness and other officers when they were being taken on a long On this occasion witness agreed ;to Baume’s mother to give sweets and fruit, on condition that they were shared with th© other two prisoners who were accompanying him to Waikerie. To this his mother readily agreed. In short, he had not given to Baume treatment which would not have heen accorded to any other person similarly detained. There was a special Act for Borstal detainees, and the prison regulations did not apply to them. WHEN THEY GOT UP Baume rose at the same hour as the other prisoners. Witness could sot say whether the chief warder had delivered eggs to Baume in the cell. The warder usually took charge of extras. It was the regulation that Baume should, be allowed to sit in the sun, while, visits from relatives to detainees and also to first offenders were encouraged. The idea underlying the Borstal system was to reform prisoners and prevent men becoming' confirmed criminals. To the magistrate: If Baume had ibeen an ordinary prisoner some of the allegations made would have heen correct. | The magistrate: And the person who makes assertions such as these is either ignorant of the difference in regulations, or makes them deliberately?—Yes. NO. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT William Robert Cook, chief warder at the Terrace Prison, said Baume was given what he was'ordered to be given in the way. of. food, but, apart From that, was accorded no preferential treatment whatever, no instructions haring been issued to this effect. Witness heard no complaints that Baume had refused to fold his blankets and keep his cell tidy. If detained for only a few days, the Borstal inmates were allowed to retain their clothes, but if kept for a month or more owing to congestion in the institution they were changed into hospital blues. Officials were expected to encourage the boys towards a hopeful outlookeven though they were in prison. To the magistrate: The Terrace prison was in a state of demolition, and fegulations wex-e not always kept in their entirety; the officials haring to keep as near to the mark as possible. Peter S. Waters, warder and receiving clerk at the Terrace gaol, corroborated the evidence of his confreres that no preferential treatment was accorded Baume. Ho was detailed to escort Baume and two reformative detention prisoners to Waikerie, and received from the superintendent a box containing whicji were to be di-

vided among the three detainees. The food was divided equally among the three, and the prison fare provided for the journey was not required. The magistrate: Mr Elliott was not on the train, was he?—l was not aware of it. Then \he person who told Mr Elliott these things was saying something that was untrue? —Absolutely. NOT IN PRISON GARB Esra Woodley, a warder, who was in charge during some of the time Baume occupied the prison, corroborated. At tbe time Baume was the only one in the boys’ yard, which was apart from the other prisoners’ yard. Several other warders were called, and then John Downe, present superintendent of the Terrace gaol, said the allegation that seven or eight youths under Borstal sentence were placed in prison garb and made to work was untrue. On the date mentioned (November 4th) there were only two or three Borstal prisoners in the gaol. The magistrate: How can you account for this being stretched to seven or eight?—l cannot say. I can only go by my journals. Were they placed in prison garb?— No. Were they made to work as ordinary prisoners?—No; only to clean their cells. As the Borstal institution was crowded, they were put into hospital blues so they would not knock their own clothes about. They were kept free from other prisoners, and were exercised in their own yard. J. C. Scanlon, recalled, refuted the allegation that Baume was allowed to keep his attache case in his cell, because witness himself had the case in his own charge during Baume’s detention.

The magistrate intimated that he would report in due course.