THE PRISONS INQUIRY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 272, 16 November 1926, Page 7

THE PRISONS INQUIRY.

MR. ELLIOTT PERSISTENT. 1 MINISTER DECLINES TO COMMENT. ALL EVIDENCE WELCOMED. (By Telegraphr—Special to "Star"> WELLINGTON, this day. Adhering to his claim for a full investigation of the Baume case, the Rev. Howard Elliott has elaborated his reasons for his opposition to a magisterial inquiry, and has referred, among other considerations, to the question of privilege. Mr. Elliott reiterates that "I will not, so far as I am concerned, allow these great issues to be sunk out of sight by a feeble attempt at camouflage in the form of a magisterial inquiry into breaches of the gaol regulations," and goes on to say that, "For all real and practical purposes, should an inquiry be held, it will be worthless and can only be used iv an attempt to publicly whitewash the defects in the administration. That is extremely undesirable. On these considerations, the public will draw its own conclusions." The Hon. F. J. Rolleston (Minister of Justice) states that he has no comment to make on the above. The necessary arrangements, he says, have been made and the inquiry will proceed before Mr. Riddell, S.M., in the course of a few days. The Justice Department will raise no obstacle to the lege and will raise no obstacle to the production of any facts or, evidence relative to the inquiry. RELEASE OF PRISONERS. PERTINENT CRITICISM. (By Telegraph—Special to "Star.") CHRISTCHURCH, this day. Discussing the Baume case, the Christchurch "Star" says editorially: There is one point of the Baume controversy upon which the Minister of Justice is open to correction, and that is his repeated statement that the work of the Prisons Board has never before been the 6ubject of criticism. Possibly he refers only to hie own term of office, for the board has certainly come in for criticism in past, not, one is bound to admit, in cases similar to Baume's, but in cases where habitual offenders have been released from prison to prey again on the community. There is, the "Star" continues, a class of criminals known as "recidivists," whose record shows that they return regularly to wrong-doing, and a few years ago there was an undoubted cause for uneasiness, which was manifested even from the Supreme Court Bench, regarding the release of men who almost immediately committed serious crimes for which they had to be tried and recommitted. One frequently reads of the conviction of men who have been declared habitual criminals two or three times over, and if there is any need for greater caution on the part of the Prisons Board it ie in regard to the re lease of men of this class.