VERSCHAFFELT CONVICTED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 9 May 1941, Page 3

VERSCHAFFELT CONVICTED

ESCAPE FROM ROTO ROA HOME.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 8

In a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrates’ Court. Mr J. Morling. S.M., disposed of a charge of escaping from the Roto Roa inebriates’ home brought against Paul Desire Nestor Verschaffelt, aged 52, formerly Public Service Commissioner. After dealing at length with the two lines of defence taken by Mr Noble and what he termed his “skilful argument” of the matter. Mr Morling convicted and discharged Verschaffelt. Verschaffelt was arrested on the charge on April 24 on the arrival of the vessel from Roto Roa Island. When the charge was heard last Thursday Mr Noble, who appeared for accused, advanced the legal defence that Verschaffelt was not a lawful inmate and therefore not subject to the clauses of the Act. He had been sent from Wellington to Roto Roa for two years, and then had been transferred to Auckland prison'by order of the Minister of Justice. A writ of habeas corpus had been obtained in the Supreme Court, the judge ordering that Verschaffelt be released from prison. Verschaffelt voluntarily returned to Roto Roa. Counsel submitted that as the original warrant had been superseded and accused was released without being subject to such warrant, he was no longer a legal inmate. It was argued by Mr Meredith, who appeared for the Crown, that the latter order did not supersede the original legal warrant committing accused to Roto Roa, which still.remained in full force and effect.

“It appears to me.” said the magistrate, “that the Minister’s order had no more effect upon the legal status of accused as an inmate of the home than if he had been taken therefrom by anyone without a semblance of authority. However, in my opinion, accused was in lawful custody at the time of his escape and he could have been apprehended if he had not returned. He says he returned voluntarily and had the distinction of being the guest of Major Norman, the superintendent. At least it appears that his claim that he was not in lawful custody was genuine, though in my opinion wrong, and his escape was made quite openly. Therefore I will impose no penalty.”