“UNTRUE OR TRIVIAL"

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12617, 30 November 1926, Page 3

“UNTRUE OR TRIVIAL"

REPORT OF BAUME INQUIRY DEPARTMENT VINDICATED MAGISTRATE’S STRONG COMMENT The report of Mr W\ G. Riddell, S.M., on the inquiry into the charges that preferential treatment had been meted out to Sidney Erne Bamnc, while in the Terrace Gaol from February 4th to February 12th. 1923. was made available by the Minister for Justice (Hon. Mr Kolleston) yesterday. The report stated that tlie allegations of Mr Howard Elliott —who had called for the inquiry—were not proved io be true; and that Mr Elliott had apparently not taken the precaution to ascertain whether they were true or false. The report also showed that the depositions of the whole of the officials of the Prisons Department who had contact with Baume during his period of detention at the Wellington Terrace prison were taken before Mr Riddell, in the presence of Mr R. Ilardie Boyes, who appeared for Mr Howard Elliott, and who the magistrate said was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses. In reviewiug the allegations, ulivu numbered 12, the magistrate pointed out that Borstal detainees are allowed to wear their own clothes if they are to be transferred to a Borstal Institution within a reasonable time, ami it also shows that Baume was not allowed to keep liis attache case in his cell. Baume was kept apart from other prisoners in accordance with regulations. He was required to get up, and did get up, at the same hour as other prisoners, viz., G. 30 u.m. FOOD PRESRIBED 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. As a Borstal detainee he had to be kept apart from ether prisoners and this was done. Borstal detainees are not placed in ordinary prison garb whilst detained in a prison pending transfer to an institution, and in Baume's case this practice was carried out. Onlv three Borstal detainees were in the Terrace prison on November 4th, 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 conges-’ tion at the Borstal Institution. THE DIFFERENCE <- The evidence shows that the regulations referred to bv Mr Elliott are prison regulations and arc not applicable to Borstal detainees,” he went on. “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 lhrstal regulations . . . ‘‘After consideration of the allegations and the evidence in reply to them, I find that some are untrue; other allegations arc so trivial that no one with a knowledge of the regulations which apply to different classes of prisoners or any idea of the value of words would waste time in making them, and all are easily explainable when the circumstances surrounding Baume’s stay in the Terrace prisoc are made known. STRONG COMMENT “It would have been more satisfactory if Mr Elliott had appeared at the enquiry and produced the affidavits which he says contained the allegations published by him regardless of their truth or falsity. The fact that he refused to appear and support the statements upon which he relied to show preferential treatment bv the prison officials or to listen to their explanations 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 thorn and was not in the least concerned whether or not they reflected upon the honestv and integrity of the prison officials. Further comment is unnecessary. ‘•The Tesult of this enquiry satisS s me that no such preferential treatment as alleged hv Mr Elliott was given to Baume. either when detained in the Terrace prison or on his iournev to tho Waikerin institution, and that the prison officials treated him whdo nnder their charge in accordance with the regulations which applied to h’S case.”