borstal inquiry ‘Evidence Of A Personal Vendetta’, Says Chairman

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30310, 10 December 1963, Page 18

borstal inquiry ‘Evidence Of A Personal Vendetta’, Says Chairman

(New Zealand Preet Association) INVERCARGILL, December 9. On the evidence so far, the allegations made by a former Invercargill Borstal officer, Robert Bennett, of irregularities in the administration of the Invercargill Borstal Institution were revealed as “a personal vendetta by Mr Bennett against the superintendent, Mr R. G. Brown,” said Mr F. F. Reid, at the end of the first day's hearing of an inquiry into Bennett’s allegations.

At the inquiry before Mr Reid Mr Bennett is conducting his own case. Counsel assisting the inquiry is Mr P. Graham, of Wellington, and Mr E. R. Winkel is appearing for the Justice Department.

Mr Bennett's allegations are:— (D Staff records were inconsistently and incorrectly recorded. <2) Attempts were made to skirt regulations governing the punishment of prisoners. <3> The majority of the staff had no confidence in the chief officer and the superintendent. Some staff members, himself included, were victimised. <5l Stable routine was lacking. (6) The institution was over-staffed. '7) There was indecision at administration levels and orders were constantly countermanded. In his preliminary remarks Mr Graham said the Prisons Department came within the sphere of the legislation administered for the Government by the State Services Commission, which had ordered the inquiry as a result of allegations by Mr Bennett made to “Truth” last month. The commission was charged with investigating matters affecting the efficiency and economy of the State services. Allegations bv Mr Bennett reflected on the efficiency, economv and administration of the Prisons Department and it was into these things the commission sought to inquire. Suppression of Names Mr Graham asked that names of trainees mentioned during the proceedings be suppressed and an order prohibiting publication was made by Mr Reid. Mr Graham said Mr Bennett must accept the burden of proving his allegations correct. Opening his case, Mr Bennett said he believed the allegations he made in "Truth” to be true and he would call evidence to substantiate the

belief. If the Justice Department considered his allegations unbased, he had no doubt the department would endeavour to justify its belief. “I want to point out at this early stage that I do not seek personal gain of any sort All I ask for is equal justice for all people concerned.” Mr Bennett said. He said he had pursued this matter through all other available channels, including the Minister of Justice and the State Services Commission, and so far had been unable to gain any satisfaction. He felt the inquiry would bring about a fair and just decision. "I am aware.” said Mr Bennett, “that every member of the staff of the Borstal knows of the irregularities referred to. but in view of a letter I have in my possession. I decided against calling any staff members for fear of further recrimination.” “Victimisation" He said he considered his dismissal from the Justice Department the result of a "plan of premeditated victimisation and I propose to submit my evidence accordingly.” Mr Bennett then gave evidence from the witness box on each of the seven allegations made. This took more than an hour. Under cross-examination by Mr Winkel, Mr Bennett said he had no administrative experience. He was educated to proficiency standard and farmed all his life until lie joined the staff of the borstal as a farm officer. Later he said he w’ould not take any statement made by Mr Brown at face value. Everything Mr Brown did had a motive against him. said Mr Bennett. He did not believe a word Mr Brown said, but did not have a chip on his shoulder. Mr Bennett admitted his allegations of victimisation were based purely on the evidence he had given and the evidence he was to call later.

He said that even if his health had failed he would have expected to have been retained as a member of the borstal staff. He had passed a medical examination to get the job. He maintained that a letter he sent to the Justice Department's head office in Wellington had been suppressed by Mr Brown, even after Mr Winkel read a copy of the reply sent to Mr Brown to Mr Bennett’s original letter. He admitted that his allegations were not against the Justice Department but against two individual officers

—Mr Brown and the chief officer, Mr Miller. He had no argument with ttie department. Mr Bennett admitted being insubordinate to Mr Brown to try to get suspended so he could appeal. Mr Brown’s refusal to suspend him was “victimisation.” He would not agree with Mr Winkel that it was a “kindly gesture” on Mr Brown's part. He maintained that Mr Brown had a sinister motive in not suspending him. He said Mr Brown would not suspend him because he did not want to face an appeal inquiry. But Mr Bennett denied he had endeavoured to blackmail Mr Brown into suspending him. When he had taken sharp wood-carving tools from an inmate on punishment, he was not aware that the psychologist and the superintendent had agreed the youth should have the tools to keep him busy. He would not admit his action in taking the tools off the boy was defiance of the superintendent, I nor would he agree that Mr I Brown’s action in not allow- | ing ttie lad to have the tools 'back was done only so that ’Mr Bennett’s concern and I fear would be allayed. He I would not admit that this was done for his benefit. Over-staffing Alleged Mr Bennett said the borstal was over-staffed. The insti- : tution had a staff of 86 for ' 265 inmates two years ago ' against 80 for 112 inmates at [present. He admitted the in-, I stttution could have been understaffed two years ago. [ but he contended it could be run with a staff of 28 at the moment, one staff member to I four trainees. He told Mr Graham in cross-examination that in spite of all the arguments and incidents in his career m 1962. he was still graded seven on the Public Service scale out of ttie possible 10, and that this gave him top marks in the “satisfactory i officer over-all” group. He contended the remarks I made on that report by Mr Brown were degrading and damaging to him. The remarks were that for promotion he must pass the junior examination, that he carried out his duties satisfactorily, that tie needed team spirit and a greater degree of co-operation with his superiors, that he was stubborn and aggressive when spoken to by his superiors, and that he needed more understanding of trainees. Mr Bennett did not agree that Mr Brown had brought these faults to his attention ' so that he could correct them. ,He maintained the faults did i not exist. Ttie inquiry will continue • tomorrow.