SENT TO BORSTAL

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 69, 14 December 1933, Page 11

SENT TO BORSTAL

Girl’s Claim for £lO5O EVIDENCE CONCLUDED Select Committee’s Inquiry Hearing of evidence on a claim for £lO5O compensation brought on petition before a Select Committee of the House of Representatives by Annie Lillian Matheson, Auckland, was concluded yesterday. The claim was made because of alleged wrongful imprisonment . in the Borstal Institution at Wellington, and in the common gaol at Auckland. Miss Matheson was recently re- . leased from custody by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court, Auckland, under a writ of habeas corpus, after his Honour had made strong comment on the illegality of a magistrate’s ' sentence of three years’ detention in a Borstal., Institution. Miss Matheson also sought to have her name expunged from the criminal records. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, was In charge of the petition, and Mr. G. Skelton, Auckland, was briefed on behalf of Miss Matheson. * Mr. F. Lye is chairman of the committee, and there were also present Messrs. R. W. Hawke, J. Linklater, P. McSkimming, J. N. Massey, and R. Semple. The case for the Department of Justice was presented by the Controller-General of Prisons, Mr. B. L. Dallard. ’ At the commencement of yesterday’s proceedings, the chairman said that when the committee adjourned on Tuesday a statement taken from the girl by three constables was in question. Inspector Cummings was considering sending for a sergeant from Napier and two constables from Auckland to prove .the statement, but counsel said that petitioner agreed to admit the signatures as hers, provided she was given an opportunity to state how statements were obtained. Statements to Police. Inspector Cummings was cross-exam-ined by Mr. Skelton in regard to statements taken from the girl by the police. Witness said he did not know whether the girl was warned before she made a statement that it would be used in evidence against her. He was not present. Counsel: Do you know that to get this particular statement the girl was examined until 4 o’clock in the morning? Inspector Cummings: I do not know. (To the chairman): I presume, Sir, if these allegations are being made, I will be given an opportunity to call the sergeant who took the statement? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Semple asked witness if, when the statement was taken from the girl, it was taken not so much to use against her, but to try to get sufficient evidence to prosecute certain persons who were keeping a certain place. Inspector Cummings replied that that was not the case. Mr. Semple: Is it the custom to take these statements from young people in a watchhouse?—“Yes.” For what purpose? To use against them when they.came before the court? —“Not necessarily.” Do you think it paid to take a young person in a psychology of fear into a police watchhouse? —“Although a person may be young in years, she may be old in knowledge.” Mr. Semple: That may be true in some cases. You cannot deal with them all alike. I know it, and you know it, that there have been instances where statements have been taken, and the manner and method of getting the statements have been the subject of very serious comment. Medical Examinations. The lady superintendent of the Borstal institution at Mt. Crawford. Miss Escott, detailed a number of medical examinations upon petitioner after her admission. The»usual medical examination upon admission was not of a comprehensive nature, and would not establish whether the girl had been leading an immoral life, she said, Miss Matheson had been a good average girl. In regard to her knowledge of affairs of the world, she knew as much as any of the other girls. The petitioner. Annie Lillian Matheson. gave evidence in regard to statements made to the police. The first statement was taken on April 16, 1931. She was not warned that anything she said might be used in evidence against her. She did not object because she did not think she would be allowed to. The police officer did not commence taking the interview until about 12.30 a.m., and it was very late before she got to the cells. She knew she was in the watchhouse a long time, because the officer made two statements, she thought, and then tore them up. She was examined continually, and one statement was torn up because she said it was not true. “I was frightened to death,” petitioner said. “It was the first time I had been in a watch-house, and I would have said ‘yes’ to anything that was said to me.” As to a statement taken at the Salvation Army Home on the following d.ay, April 17, witness said two constables tried to make her admit she had been going out with certain men and going to certain places. She kept on denying it, but the constable tried to make her admit things that were not true. A Constable’s Questions. On April 25 following, she was interviewed by Constable Alahood, and was questioned concerning her morality. He wanted her to tell him with whom she had been out, and what she had been doing. With reference to misconduct with a man mentioned in the statement, witness admitted that this was true. The constable said he had seen the man and he admitted it. She then told the constable if that were so, he had better put it down. Evidence was heard from John Beck, superintendent of Child Welfare, on the general scheme and purport of Child Welfare legislation. Inspector Cummings said that the sergeant who took a statement from the girl had stated that she was talkative, and she made her statement in the presence of the police matron. He could bring the sergeant down from Napier if the committee so desired. The chairman said he did not think the committee had the impression that improper methods were used by the sergeant. Mr. .Semple: I do not think the Police Department or the Child Wel’are organisations are under question it alt It is a question of the judgnent of the magistrate. The .taking of evidence concluded, ’he chairman said a statement would ie obtained from Mr. Hunt, S.M., upon :he question of the “remand” or “adlournment.” , The committee will deliberate this morning.