GUEST OR INMATE?

Wairarapa Times-Age, 2 May 1941, Page 3

GUEST OR INMATE?

P. D. N. VERSCHAFFELT BEFORE COURT. CHARGE OF ESCAPING FROM ROTO ROA HOME. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 1. Charged with escaping from the Roto Roa Inebriates’ Home on April 24, Paul Desire Nestor Verschaffelt, former Public Service Commissioner, aged 52 (Mr Noble), appeared on remand before Mr Molding, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court. The charge was denied. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr J. RMeredith, took the police case. Major Norman, superintendent at the islarid, said Verschaffelt was committed to the home for two years by a court warrant signed in October, 1940. He was later allowed to leave to attend an appeal in the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed and he was returned to the island under a court warrant. On February 20, 1941, the Minister of Justice signed a transfer under which Verschaffelt was taken from the home to the Auckland prison. After habeas corpus proceedings were taken a judgment by Mr Justice Blair ordered that the transfer be voided and Verschaffelt returned to the island, where he was being held at the time of his escape. Before Verschaffelt left the island witness warned him that he was committing an offence.

Cross-examined, Major Norman said Verschaffelt handed him a note before he escaped which thanked him for keeping accused on the island as a guest and which stated that as accused was not an inmate he was able to go. Constable Blackburn said he arrested Verschaffelt when the launch arrived at Auckland from the island. Accused, said witness, was making a mistake. Mr Noble said the facts of escape were admitted, but he drew the Court’s attention to the section under which the information was laid, which referred to an escape from lawful custody as an inmate. The defence was that Verschaffelt was not in lawful custody at all and therefore could not have escaped. “Our argument is that the Minister has no power to transfer a man from the jail to the home.” said Mr Noble, “and we also contend that the Minister’s order transferring him to prison superseded and annulled any other warrants or orders by which he was held.” ■ Mr Meredith said the Minister's order was merely a direction made for reasons of discipline to transfer Verschaffelt to prison. The Supreme Court had held that the transfer was illegal and had been voided. In effect it was held that the Minister did not make transfer. “Therefore, as Verschaffelt Was not properly legally transferred, he remains untransferred, which means that he is where he was before—on the island,” continued Mr Meredith.. “This transfer, being a bad one, has no effect on the previous warrant, which Was an order of the Court. As the order from one institution to the other Was not properly made, the court order still stands.” “The matter is one which has to be j looked into,” said Mr Molding. “It is not as simple as it seems on the surface.” Asked by Mr Molding if he was prepared to return to the home while the case was being considered, Verschaffelt said he was quite Willing.