THE MOTUIHI ESCAPE.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 January 1918, Page 4

THE MOTUIHI ESCAPE.

COURT-MARTIAL ON COLONEL TURNER. THE PERSONNEL AND TOB CHARGES. By Telegraph. —Press Association, Wellington, Last Night. In respect of the escape of prisoner* from Motuihi, the following information lm» been given by the Defence Department for publication, concerning the court-martial. A general court-martial will assemble at Auckland on January 2ft for tho purpose of trying LieutenantColonel C. H. Turner. The personnel of the court will be: President, Colonel N. P. Adams, C.M.G.; members, LieutenantColonels J. L. Sleeman, D. Pringle, K. W. Porritt, ,1. A. P. Fredrick, J. Deans, P. T. Bellringer; waiting members, LieutenantColonels J. P. Stevenson and T. H. Stedtitan. The Judge Advocate General will be present, and will act as judge advocate. Captain P. E. Baldwin bat been ijppointed prosecutor. The charge upon which LieutenantColonel Turner will be tried is laid under section 20 (2) of the Army Act, and is as set out in the following charge-sheet: Accused, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Harconrt Turner, sth (Wellington) Regiment, being a member of the Defence Forces of New Zealand, is charged with: (1) Without reasonable excuse allowing to escape persons committed to hia charge, in that he, at Motuilii Island, on or about the 13th day of December, 1917, while commandant of the said island, and having the care, charge and custody upon the aaid island of certain prisoners of war and interned alien enemiea—to wit: one Lieutenant-Commander Count von Luckner, Lieutenant Kirscheiss, Wireless Operator Grun, Wireless Engineer Freund, Naval Cadets von Zalgraki, Paulsen, Schmidt, Mellert and Klohn, Seaman Erdmann, and one voil Egidy, a Samoan Government official—allowed the said Commander Count von Lucknei and the others mentioned as being prisoners of war or interned alien enemies, to obtain possession of a launch and make other preparations for their escape, without taking reasonable means to prevent it, and thus he permitted their escape. The second charge is: Without reasonable excuse allowing to escape person! whom it was his duty to keep in, having done the acts alleged iu the particulars of the first charge. The third charge is: Without reasonable excuse allowing to escape persons whom it was his duty to guard. INQUIRY INTO OTHER CASES. A court of inquiry on January 31 will assemble at Auckland, for the purpose ol enquiring into, and reporting upon, tlx responsibility of ColoiH G. W. S. Patterson and Ma jor J. Oaburne Lilly, in respect of the escape of prisoners from Motuihi Island. The pern.. ■ 1 of the court will be: President, Ov el N. P. Adams, C.M.G.; members, Majors H. A. Coopei and W. H. Fletcher. The issues upoa which the court will report are: (a) Was the commandant of Motuihi Island directly responsible to headquarters, We), lington, or to district Auckland, for the custody of the prisoners of war? (b) As to Colonel G. W. S. Patterson: (1) Was it the duty of Colonel Paterson to ensure that proper precautions weri taken to guard prisoners at Motuih: Island? (2) If it was his duty, did 1m take reasonable steps to carry out such, duty? (3) If it was his duty, and if hi did not take responsible steps to carrj out such duty, did his failure to do st contribute towards the escape of thi prisoners? (4) If it was his duty, and ii he did not take reasonable steps to carrj out such duty, was his failure to do s< due to culpable negligence, to negligence to misconception of the duty cast upoi him, or to an error of judgment? (c) As to Major J. Osburne Lilly: (1| Was he aware of the inadequacy of thi precautions for safeguarding prisoners I (2) 'Did his duty as staff officer requiri that he should take any steps to remedy such inadequacy? (3) If he was awart of the inadequacy, and if it was his dutj to take steps to remedy sutfh inadequacy did he take reasonable steps to do sol (4) If be failed to take steps to remedj the inadequacy, did his failure to taki such Bteps contribute to the escape o! the prisoners? (5) If he failed to taki such steps, \\'as his failure due to eulp' able negligence, to negligence, to miscoit eeption of the duty cast upon him, or U an error of judgment ? This court of inquiry will be held undel tho same arrangements as the previous court of inquiry, that is to say, it wit be open to the press, and the evidence ai authorised by the president of the cour( may be published. It is to be noted\tha\ permitting this court of inquiry and tin previous court of inquiry to be open, ti the press, with the consequent publictu tion of the evidence is an unusual pro. ceeding, and was only allotted on thii occasion on account of the great (iublii interest that was excited over the event The departure from the proper and usuai course has already caused some complica tions, and it must not be taken as a precedent. It is intended that future courti of inquiry will be held, as they should b< held, in camera, and will not be open t» public or press.