MOVE FOR MORON'S RELEASE?

NZ Truth, Issue 1202, 13 December 1928, Page 8

MOVE FOR MORON'S RELEASE?

Success Improbable

Too Much Secrecy

Rumors of Agitation to Liberate Russell Peter Coghlan ________ ■ \ PRISONS BOARD NOT LIKELY TO ACCEDE (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative) I? . . '* II In March, 1924, one of the worst morons this Dominion has ever known received from Judge Stringer a life sentence and a \\ If flogging after hearing from the bench that he was ; "an unspeakable beast who was not fit to live on this earth. " This man was || | Russell Peter Coghlan, a well-educated accountant and [social luminary m Hamilton. ||; I To-day, less than five years after his sentence was pronounced, rumors are current m Hamilton and Auckland that a move- jf f ment is on foot among influential friends to secure Coghlan's early release. H

NOT only are these rumors circulating outside, but "Truth" is m a position to state that the 'subject is an item of gossip within Mount Eden gaol itself. That the Prisons Board could for a moment consider Coghlan's release is unthinkable,- but stories of influences at work to secure this end are current, and the public mind is agitated. This paper has the best of reasons for stating that Coghlan's chances of securing his freedom at an early date at the hands of the Prisons Board are very remote, if not actually non-exis-tent.

In recent years there have been two glaring cases where undue leniency that amounted to an abuse of the prisons system raised a storm of indignant protest throughout the country. One was the case of Charles Mackay, ex-mayor of Wanganui, who was released before he had served halt his sentence of. fifteen years for a serious offence. Then, later, there was the Baume case — : another scandalous instance of preferential treatment. m both the Mackay and the Baume cases, influential friends with moneywere said to be behind the scenes. When there are such recorded cases to serve, as criteria, it is not surprising that there is a fixed idea m the public mind that influence and money can achieve great things for a convicted criminal: It is well known that Coghlan was not without influential friends at the lime of his downfall, and it is not unreasonable to assume that those friends might still be sufficiently interested m him to work for his release. Whether or not they will sue-

ceed is a matter for conjecture, but judging from information m the possession of. this paper, it is highly improbable that Coghlan will see the outside of Mount Eden prison for a long time to comet For one thing, the board would hardly dare to release him, even if it were so disposed, after the' Mackay and the Baume scandals, which were exposed exclusively by this paper. That does not alter the fact, however, that there is a movement on foot to do something for Coghlan, and it will be as well for his influential friends, whoever they may be, to realize that any effort on their part to effect the release of such a man would be tantamount to a crime against society, especially innocent youth. The public is m no mood to suffer gladly a sentimental campaign on behalf of such a perverted scoundrel as Coghlan, who left a trail of moral ruin behind him, and his offences, m contaminating youths, numbered over 70. Yet this is the type of man on whose behalf friends are said to be working. Gossip is general, and unusual con-

firmation of it was forthcoming from quite an unexpected source. , Recently there called at "Truth's" Auckland office an ex-prisoner who knew Coghlan m Mount Eden gaol. This man made no secret of the I fact that the subject of Coghlan's ; possible early release was a comr mon topic m the gaol. - Coghlan himself had spoken about, it with the utmost confidence, and as a • result there was a feeling of resentt ment among the other prisoners that - such a man should be the likely re--1 cipient of preferential treatment. > This ex-prisoner- also volunteered the > information that he had gathered from I Coghlan's conversation that he had m • no way reformed or repented. What has the Prisons Board to say ' about the rumors regarding Cc-;iilan? - .This much can be said. It is well 3 known that the board sat this month, i and "Truth" is m a position to state - that Coghlan's case did not come up • for review. s So far so good, but that does not necessarily mean that it will not come - up for review at the next sitting, or

even at a subsequent one. If it does, the board's duty is plain — it must turn down any application for Coghlan's release. The personnel of the Prisons Board ia a aound one, and common sense is not the least of its members' attributes, however much they may be inclined to err oh the side of leniency and mercy. They must .be given credit; not only for common sense, but for .a high sense of their responsibilities, and if those qualities are exercised, then the question of toghlan's release, even within the next five years, ■ can safely be dismissed as

worthy of no serious consideration. Much of the public disquiet and the popular belief that influence counts with the board would be dispelled if the activities of this body were less shrouded m secrecy than they are to-day. There is far too much "m camera" procedure with the board, and this has given rise to public dissatisfaction. Irrespective of. the question of procedure, -however", sentimental influences should find no place m the system of criminal reform, and "N.Z. Truth" believes that the Prisons Board, no matter . what representations are made or may be made by interested friends of Coghlan, will turn down firmly any application for a review of his case. ■ ■ '' X the influential coterie who are said to be agitating for the release of this man will get this fact well into their minds, they will save themselves much time and effort that otherwise will be wasted. . ■ Coghlan is not fit to be at large, and the Prisons Board knows it.