Loosened Prison Doors

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26030, 6 February 1950, Page 6

Loosened Prison Doors

One among several amendments made in 1946 to the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927, has had effects which, apparently, were not foreseen when the amending bill was drafted, jvhen it was examined by committees and debated in the

House of Representatives, or when it was approved by the council of the legal profession. In the Supreme Court at Christchurch on Friday the Crown Prosecutor (Sir Arthur Donnelly) strongly criticised the amendment, which provides release of a prisoner on bail, on his own recognisance, without any surety, on his lodging notice of appeal against his sentence. Sir Arthur’s comment was prompted by the failure of a prisoner to appear for the hearing of an appeal lodged by'him. The prisoner had served 10 days of a sentence of two years in a Borstal institution; he appealed on December 19, and was released on his own recognisance of £5. Having got out of prison for Christmas and the New Year, as the Crown Prosecutor put it, the prisoner disappeared from his home on January 3, and his whereabouts have not been known to the authorities since. When the presiding Judge (Mr Justice Northcroft)/ endorsed Sir Arthur Donnelly’s criticism he mentioned that the occasion under notice was ndt the first on which advantage had been taken of theamendment to secure release from prison, not for the genuine purpose of appeal. The Judge mentioned the case of a man serving a sentence “who wanted his release to “ commit another crime. . . . He “ appealed, was released, and pro- “ ceeded to carry out the crime The Judge remarked that as the law stood, a man who had served part of his sentence but wanted temporary freedom for private reasons, such as to attend a family gathering, merely lodged an appeal against his sentence, and got out. Obviously, it was not the intention of the drafters or of the legislative and legal examiners of the amendment that it should work this way. But it is surely quite remarkable that the abundance of legal talent which examined the amendment before its enactment failed to see what others quickly saw. Seemingly the lower level of personal interest quickened eyes to a loophole that was not perceived by those moving on a loftier plane, who were working to improve the law. This, of course, was the purpose of the amending bill which, as the Acting-Minister of Justice (Mr Jones) said when moving its committal, was “ primarily de- “ signed to amend ” section 315 of the Justices of the Peace Act. Hansard shows that other speakers concentrated on section 315, but had nothing to say about the subsidiary, perhaps complementary, amendment to section 317, which, as experience has demonstrated, so easily opens prison gates. It is deplorable, and particularly so to the lawmakers, it must be assumed, that ’ their intentions have been abused; | that wrong-doers have not played • the game. But since the law is : now palpably at fault in leaving prison doors with too loose a latch, the public interest calls for a further and tighter amendment.