ESCAPE CHARGE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 107, 8 May 1941, Page 8

ESCAPE CHARGE

INMATE OF ROTO ROA

PAUL VERSCHAFFELT CASE

In a reserved judgment delivered In the Police Court this afternoon, Mr. J. Morling, S.M., disposed of the charge of escaping from Roto Roa Inebriates' Home, brought against Paul Desire Nestor Verschaffelt, aged 52, retired public servant.

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. Moiiin'g convicted and discharged Verschaffelt.

Versehaffelt was arrested on the charge on Thursday, April 24, on the arrival of a vessel from Roto Roa Island. When the charge was heard in the Police Court last Thursday, Mr. W. 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 the Auckland Prison. 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 Counsel submitted that as the original warrant had been superseded, and accused was released without being subject to such warrant, he was no longer a legal inmate.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. V. R. Meredith, who appeared for the Crown, that the later order did not supersede the original legal warrant committing accused to Roto Roa, which still remained in full force and effect. Convicted Without Penalty "It appears to me," said the magistrate, "that the Minister's order had no more effect upon the legal status of the accused as an inmate of the home than if he had been taken therefrom by anyone without the semblance of authority. However, in my opinion, the 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." '