SOLDIERS IN FIJI GAOL

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23401, 7 August 1941, Page 8

SOLDIERS IN FIJI GAOL

MR FRASER DISCUSSING CASE DIFFICULTIES MENTIONED BY MR NASH tP.R.) WELLINGTON. August 6. “The Prime Minister .is discussing this matter with the United Kingdom Government and the colonial authorities, and we hope that some steps may ■be taken by agreement that will ameliorate the sentence of these four boys,” said the Acting-Prime Minister (the Hon. W. Nash) in the House today during the discussion on a report by the Defence Committee recommending favourable consideration of a petition submitted b’y a Hawke’s Bay woman who sought a review of the sentence passed on her soldier son in Fiji. It was stated in the petition that the soldier, who had enlisted when under age, was serving a sentence of four years’ imprisonment at Fiji. Mr J. A. Lee (Demooratic Labour,

Grey Lynn) said that some New Zealand soldiers, obviously under the influence of liquor, became engaged in a violent brawl and committed an offence. He believed that they were exceedingly savagely sentenced. He considered that the authorities in Fiji had set out to make an example after some offences had been committed. He believed that the Government had made certain representations, and was uneasy at the prospect of an 18-year-old boy serving four years in a foreign gaol. Mr Lee expressed the hope that the .prisoner would be returned to New Zealand. He also expressed regret at the publicity the case had occasioned, and said he thought the first announcement of New Zealand troops being in Fiji was the

report of the case. "The case is a fairly difficult one, because this Government cannot in any way interfere with the jurisdiction of the Government of Fiji.” said Mr Nash. “The fact that there is a large number of our young men there does give some concern to the Government, and as soon as an announcement was made in this particular case —there are four young men in the case—the Government gave some thought to it, and felt that, measuring the facts in line with New Zealand procedure, the penalty seemed heavy and harsh, and steps were immediately taken to draw the attention of the Fiji authorities, and the general officer commanding in Fiji to the matter. We have had quite some correspondence with the Government of Fiji in connexion with it; but it would ■be dangerous for us to do anything that would tend to interfere with the procedure that is operating in Fiji for the maintenance of law and order. It is not quite the same as in New Zealand. We felt, however, that the penalty was more than would normally be expected to be suffered, and to avoid a complication of an international or inter-Dominion nature we communicated with the Prime Minister.”