RELEASED PRISONERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 302, 21 December 1926, Page 9

RELEASED PRISONERS.

WHY LENIENCY GRANTED. FRISON BOARD STATEMENT. REVIEW OF THREE CASES. i The Minister of Justice. Hon. F. J. T.olleston, last night made available for publication the report of the Prisons' Board regarding the release of three prisoners. Sehwn Baker. Sidney Erne Baume and Charles Evan Mackay. whose cases have been prominently before the public during recent months. After dealing with the hoard's constitution and its desire to assist in the reformation of nP"-"ders, the report goes on to deal w. j the three cases seriatim. Baume's Detention and Release. In regard to Sidney Erne Baume, the board reports that in February last the accused, who was then 20 years of age and a law clerk in the employ of Messrs. Chapman. Sker-ftt, Tripp and Blair, was convicted of having, in conjunction with a man named William Smith, obtained from the Post Office Savings Bank three sums of money totalling £1110—the major portion of which was subsequently recovered—by means of false 7>retences. He was sentenced to be detained in a Borstal Institution for a period not exceeding three years. The jury, by their verdict, expressly found that Baume had "engineered" the scheme by which the money was obtained, and the judge who tried the case approved that finding. The jury also recommended Baume to mercy on account of his youth. In passing sentence the judge said that in his opinion the fraudulent scheme initiated by Baume was due to the latter's "vanity" rather than his "cupidity." In closing his address to the accused, the judge said:— "I sentence you to be detained in a Borstal Institution for reformative purposes for a period not exceeding three years, which means that upon your conduct will depend the duration of your sentence. You will be under the jurisdiction of the body known as the Prisons Board, who have the power and, I have no doubt, : will exercise it humanely and ' leniently, so that if your conduct i there shows, as I feel certain it will, : signs of a desire to re-establish your- '. self, your sentence, I have no doubt, : will be shortened." Baume, continues the report, petitioned the board for his release, among other considerations urging that employment of a litenjiry character had been obtained for him in Australia through ; the instrumentality of his brother, who occupied a responsible position there. . Consideration of this petition was defer- ; red from time to time until August 2C, ; when the board was then constituted, j being satisfied that the offender would abstain from further crime and would ; lead a useful and industrious life, un- ' animously—the only member absent being Sir George Fenwick—recom- ; mended that the accused be released upon probationary license, with permis- ' sion for him to leave Xew Zealand in ' order to accept the employment offered, . the board considering that it would be ' in his own interests that he should accept such employment and commence •> his life afresh in a new environment ! and under the supervision of his elder f brother. This recommendation was given f effect to in due course. 1 Reasons for Release. ( The reasons for the board's, recommen- ( da tion were:— ] (1) That the fidlest effect should be | given to the recommendation of the f jury, and to the judge's suggestion i that he should he treated humanely < and leniently. (2) That his conduct during his detention ia the Borstal institution was highly satisfactory, as evidenced by reports of the superintendent and the schoolmaster, the former of i which wrote as follows: "Conduct and industry in institution, good. The inmate is amenable to discipline, is manly in character, and has been a good influence among his fellow inmates. He has assisted the schoolmaster, and has been a willing assistant in every way. In j my opinion the inmate is not likely > to offend again, and with his attain- i ments further detention can scarcely improve his position. He is employed as a cleaner in the storeroom." (3) That his punishment was severe in that, apart from the degradation of the conviction and sentence, he was barred from entering his profession, for which he had qualified himself by years of arduous study, and in the practice of which he had, owing to his intellectual ability, every prospect of a successful and probably brilliant career. (4) That to a youth of his educational attainments, the training ' available at the Waikeria Borstal Institution was comparatively negligible. ■ (5) That he had occupied positions of trust, both in societies connected with Victoria College and in the legal office iv which he was employed, and had always discharged the duties of such trusts with honesty and uprightness. Testimonials in these respects and to his general good character from several representative citizens are on Baume's file. (6) That it was in the best interests ■; of the accused himself, and also of the community, that he should be allowed the earliest opportunity of making a fresh start in life. Why Mackay Was Released. Regarding the case of Charles Evan Mackay, who, on May 28, 1920, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to mur- , der Walter D'Arcy Cresswell by shooting , him, and was sentenced by Sir Robert ; Stout, then Chief Justice, to 15 years' i imprisonment, the report points out that at the time of the commission of the ' offence Mackay was 45 years of age, and was a leading barrister and solicitor , practising in Wanganui, of which town he was then Mayor, a position which he had held for ten consecutive years. It appeared at the hearing that Cresswell had discovered that Mackay had been guilty of indecent practices with young men, that he had interviewed Mackay on the subject on several occasions, and that he had insisted upon Mackay resigning from his position as Mayor, or otherwise he would expose him. In a written statement made by Cresswell some two years after he was wounded, lie says that at his final interview with Mackay, when the shooting took place, '. the latter was in a state of "anguish and hysteria," and that "his mind was i unbalanced." It seems clear, from a ; perusal of the evidence, that the crime ; was not premeditated, but was, as stated by the Chief Justice, in passing . sentence, "an impulsive act." For some years past petitions for '. Mackay's release have been made from ; time to time to the Prisons Board by his relatives and friends. These petitions, however, did not receive favourable consideration until June 1, 1925, when the Prisons Board recommended

the Governor-General to release Mackay on probationary license for the unexpired period of his sentence, with permission to leave the Dominion in charge of his sister, and to remain out of Xew Zealand during the currency of his license. He was released accordingly on August 0. 1920, and immediately ' left Xew Zealand in charge of his sister, in accordance with the terms of his license. Why Release Granted. The decision of the board, which included the judge who had sentenced Mackay, was based upon the following considerations:— (1) Mackay had already suffered extremely severe punishment, in that he had (a) undergone G_ years' imprisonment, -which, to a man of his attainments, was not only degrading, but must have produced intense suffering: (b) had been struck off the rolls. and was permanently barred from practising his profession; fc) had been made bankrupt, and his business and estate wound up; (d) had been divorced by his wife, and permanently separated from his children. (2) His conduct aud industry in prison had been satisfactory. (3) Signs of degeneration, both in mind and body, were becoming more and more apparent, the superintendent of one institution specially referring to his failing memory and health, and it was considered that, unless he were granted an early release, he would become incapable of earning a living, and would become a permanent charge upon the State. (4) That his sister, an intelligent and responsible woman of mature years, was prepared to take charge of him and accompany him to England, where she undertook to set him up in some occupation in which he could earn an honest living in a new environment. A Youthful Offender. In regard to Selwyn Baker, the report says: "It is open to very serious doubt whether the interference deposed to by the witnesses amounted in law to an indecent assault, and in any case it was nothing more than the result of some obscure sex impulse, which, at his age, and in the absence of proper advice and instruction, was not unlikely to develop. Baker, however, who had no legal assistance at the time, pleaded guilty to the charges made against him, and it then became necessary for the Children's Court to deal with him. Inquiries were made as to the youth's general character, which was found to be highly satisfactory in every way. He was a skilled musician, and was organist at St. Chad's Church, the vicar and vestry of which had the highest opinions of him. As a result of these inquiries, it wa.s the intention of the Children's Court to place the youth on probation for twelve months, but. as he had pleaded guilty to indictable offences, he could not be dealt with by tho Children's Court unless referred to it from the Supreme Court. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the trivial nature of the offences apparently was not made clear to the judge, and, instead of being referred back to the Children's Court, the boy was ordered to be detained in a Borstal Institute for a term not exceeding two years. Steps were immediately taken to obtain some mitigation of the sentence, and the case ultimately came before the Prisons Board. The lady associate wrote stating that many worse cases than this happened in the schools, and were punished by the masters. The board recommended Baker's release on probationary license, and the reports of the probation officer on the youth's conduct since then fully justify that course."