RELEASE ORDERED

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 35, 4 November 1933, Page 8

RELEASE ORDERED

Girl in Borstal Home POWERS EXCEEDED Children’s Court Sentence “EXTRAORDINARY” CASE By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, November 3. Condemnation of the action of the Children’s Court in illegally committing an ts-year-old girl to a Borstal institution was voiced by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court when an application was made for a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release from custody of Annie Lillian Matheson on the ground that she was wrongfully detained in Mount Eden prison. His Honour, in ordering the immediate discharge of the girl from the prison, said the proceedings of the Children’s Court in the case disclosed an extraordinary state of affairs, the Court acting entirely beyond its jurisdiction. , , „ Mr Hall Skelton, who appeared for the girl, said the applicant was a wellknown Scottish singing and dancing girl, a daughter of Pipe-Major Matheson, formerly of the Seaforth Highlanders. who had a distinguished war record in the British Army. Three years ago the mother, who was a strict Presbvterian, had a slight disagreement with her daughter over the girl’s habit of attending public dances, and spoke to Major Annie Gordon, of the Salvation Army, about her daughters behaviour. Major Gordon thereupon had the girl brought before the magistrate on a charge, of being idle and disorderly and having no visible means of support, and she was lodged in a police lock-up. The charge was heard in the Police Court on April 17, 1931, and the magistrate remanded her to appear in the Children’s Court in a fortnight. “The girl says she did not speak while the proceedings were in progress as she was bewildered, staggered and frightened to death,” said counsel. “She was only 16 and her parents were virtually ■ new-comers in a strange country. On May 2 the girl went with Major Gordon to the Children’s Court, but there was no sitting, and she was told to come back on May 9. The whole procedure was quite improper because, under tlie Justices of the Peace Act, a remand for a longer period than eight days cannot be ordered without the subject’s consent, and the girl in her affidavit says she gave no consent and that, if Major Gordon consented on her behalf, ’she had no authority from the applicant to do so. That was the first irregularity.” Passage from Affidavit. The following passage from the girl’s affidavit was read by counsel: “I asked Major Gordon if I could have a solicitor to appear for me, but she did not let me have one. I was sent to the Salvation Army Home after my remand, and was not allowed to write to my mother nor to receive any communication whatever. As a result of my treatment there I left the home without Major Gordon’s permission and did not appear in the Children’s Court when my case was called on May 9.” Counsel said tlie next irregularity was that an information, instead of complaint, was made concerning the girl i nthe Children’s Court, and no summons was issued. In her absence she was convicted and discharged on a charge of not having sufficient means of support, although actually she was in receipt of £1 a week from an aunt in Scotland, and her parents were well off. However, she was on the same day treated as a delinquent and was sentenced to three years’ confinement in a Borstal Institution in Wellington. She was arrested and had served eighteen monthes in the institution when she was released on probation on account of good conduct. His Honour: Does this mean that once a report has been made by a child welfare officer, any child can forthwith be placed by the Children’s Court under the care of the Superintendent of the Welfare Department without evidence or either appearance or notification of the parents? Mr. Hubble, for the gaoler at Mount Eden Prison: I have very grave doubts as to the technical correctness of the proceedings. Mr. Hall Skelton submitted that the Children’s Court had no power under the Child Welfare Act to send a child to a Borstal Institution. The right course was to place it under the care of the Superintendent of the Child Welfare Department or the child welfare officer. His Honour: It seems plain to me that the magistrate had no power ‘it all to make an order like that. , “Innocent Escapade." Mr. Hall Skelton said that some time after the girl’s release on probation she went to the wharf one night to meet some Scottish boys who were arriving by the Monowai. She was practically taigaged to one of them and had the permission of her parents and of tile Rev. Angus McDonald to meet him there “She was seen at midnight by someone who sent in a report on her conduct.” said counsel, “and as a result of this innocent escapade she had her probation license cancelled She was arrested by two policemen and was thrown into prison among a number of criminal women without seeing her parents. It is really a very terrible affair.” Mr. Hubble said that in his view there was an excess of jurisdiction in the original order, and all the subsequent acts were consequent upon tlie original irregularity.

Mr. Hall Skelton: The whole trouble arose -because the mother tried to stop her daughter from going to dances. ■ His Honour said the proceedings disclosed an extraordinary state of affairs. “Tho Children’s Court,” he said, ‘‘would appear to exercise the powers o fa star chamber. It is perfectly plain that the legislation deliberately intends to give the court these extraordinary powers. The court has power upon the report of a child welfare officer to make an order committing a child to the care of tlie superintendent of the Child Welfare branch of the Education Department or place it under tlie supervision of a child welfare officer, and it may do that without the issue of a complaint or summons or without the appearance of anybody, but it is also perfectly clear that when these matters conic before this court it will strictly construe the powers of the Children's Court, and will see to it that that court is not allowed to act beyond its jurisdiction. “Various Irregularities.” “There are various irregularities in this case,” continued his Honour. “In the first place the girl was charged with being idle and disorderly, and was

then remanded for more than eight days without her consent. Then apparently without evidence she was convicted and discharged, although it is said her parents had means and had a home for her. On the same day it seems that the police, acting under subsection 1 of section 13 of the Child Welfare Act, issued an information that was intended to be a complaint that the girl was deemed to be a delinquent. and on that day without service or the appearance of the child, the court made an order committing her to the Borstal Institution for three years. "The Court had no power to commit the girl to the Borstal Institution,” concluded his Honour. “It could only commit her to the charge of the superintendent of the Child Welfare Branch or to welfare officers. It follows that the order was made entirely without jurisdiction and all subsequent proceedings are null and void and of no effect. The applicant is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and the girl will be discharged from custody forthwith.” Mr. Hall Skelton: Has your Honour power to quash the conviction? His Honour: I do not think so on these proceedings.