RELEASE OF MAREO

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25309, 8 October 1947, Page 6

RELEASE OF MAREO

REMISSION OF LIFE - SENTENCE

BRIEF DISCUSSION HQHOUSE

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 7. The remission of the sentence of life imprisonment passed on Eric Mareo for the murder of his wife was debated briefly in the House of Representatives this evening. The Minister of Justice (Mr H. G. R. Mason) said that he had noticed the name of Eric Mareo among the list of forms containing Prisons Board recommendations. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo), who raised the subject, asked if the Minister would tell the House if there were any, specified time which a person convicted of a capital offence must serve. Mr Mason said the matter of releases of prisoners was entirely at the discretion of the Prisons Board, which considered such factors as conduct, industry, the degree of reclamation which it was considered had been achieved, and the safety issue which would arise from setting a prisoner free. The board was experienced in handling cases of prisoners .of all types and it acquired experience in so doing. There was no law restricting or restraining the board, nor had there been any recent amendment to the law amplifying its

powers. Inquiry About Minimum Tenn Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera) said the House was entitled to know how long a man was to serve for a’ capital offence, or what was the minimum before he could be set loose “to have another go.” Mr Broadfoot asked if any recommendation had been made to the Minister concerning Mareo. This man had had two trials and was convicted each time (on the second occasion without the. recommendation to mercy which was given by the jury at the first trial), the case had been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, and three petitions to the House had been equally unsuccessful. Now it was reported in a weekly newspaper that he was to be set free next year after serving 12 years. Had the Prisons Board made a report to the Minister, and if sd what was the nature of the report? asked Mr Broadfoot. If such a recommenda-

tion for release had been made, it would almost appear as if some sinister influence had been ’at work all along to get this man released. Objection to Expression Mr Mason said that as AttorneyGeneral he must object to the use of the expression “sinister influence.” The chairman of the board was a Judge of the Supreme Court (Sir Archibald Blair). Mr Clyde Carr, Chairman of Committees, upheld the objection. Mr .Broadfoot withdrew the word “sinister” and added that it did seem to him that some influence had been at work. Mr Mason said he could not say what the recommendation was as to the date of the release of Mareo. He did not look it up, nor turn up the man’s file, but he had not the slightest reason to doubt that the Prisons Board had gone into each case most thoroughly. Mr Mason said that he signed many forms recommending the release of prisoners. When he was first a Minister he read them all carefully. Sometimes there were 40 or 60 names on a list. The fact that now. after being a Minister for so many years, he treated them so- casually did not imply that the Prisons Board treated them equally casually. The board gave every case the most careful consideration before making any recommendation.

Mrs H. Ross (Opposition, Hamilton) said it was nqt going to reassure the people, particularly women, who were very concerned at present with cases occasioning much public concern, if there were discussions on how long a person convicted of a capital offence should stay in gaol. Cases confronting them to-day were disturbing everyone and there should be the closest examination before any releases of prisoners convicted of serious offences were made without their having served the terms imposed.