H—2OA

REPORT OF THE PRISONS BOARD For the Year Ended 31st December, 1949 The following summary gives details of the cases considered and the decisions arrived at: — Cases Dealt With Board's Decisions Persons undergoing Borstal detention .. 231 Recommended for release on probation . . 104 Recommended for discharge Deferred for later consideration .. .. 126 Applications declined .. .. .. 1 231 231 Persons sentenced to reformative detention 461 Recommended for release on probation .. 249 Recommended for discharge .. . . 2 Deferred for later consideration .. . . 204 Applications declined .. .. ' . . 6 461 461 Persons sentenced to hard labour .. 238 Recommended for release on probation . . 139 Recommended for discharge .. . . 2 Deferred for later consideration .. .. 91 Applications declined .. .. . . 6 238 238 Habitual criminals for release or remission Recommended for release on probation .. 10 of head sentence .. .. 36 Recommended for remission of head sentence . . .. .. . . 1 Deferred for later consideration .. .. 24 Applications declined .. .. .. 1 36 36 Probationers under Crimes Amendment Act 11 Recommended for discharge .. . . 1 Deferred for later consideration . . .. 6 Applications declined .. .. .. 3 Conditions modified .. .. . . 1 11 11 Probationers under Offenders Probation Act 28 Discharge granted .. .. .. 16 Terms modified .. .. .. 4 Applications declined .. '•.-.''• .. 8 28 28 During the year the Board held 15 meetings and dealt with 1,005 cases. As required by the regulations, the Board held a sitting during the year at each of the penal and Borstal institutions in the Dominion. Every prisoner or inmate who appeared before the Board was given every encouragement to make, and every help in making, such representations as he or she desired. The Board was thus afforded an opportunity, within the limits the occasion afforded, of discussing with each of the persons who appeared before it the causes of his or her offending and such associated questions as might have been of a contributory character from the point of view of causation. Each person interviewed was also encouraged to disclose and discuss his or her future intentions, ambitions, and prospects. By this means the Board was enabled not only to judge, with a maximum of discrimination

2