"BREAKING IN"

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 137, 6 December 1918, Page 10

"BREAKING IN"

TREATMENT AT WANGANUI BARRACKS COMPLAINTS GENERALLY UPHELD COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. The Minister of Defence laid on the table in tho House of Representatives yestorday afternoon the report of Mr. J. G-. L. Hewitt, S.M., on the allegations* of ill-tceatment of prisoners in the Wanganui detention barracks. The three matters into which the Commissioner was asked to inquire were: (a) To what degTec, if at all, the allegations in tho letter to the editor of Truth were correct, (b) If force had been used, for what purpose it had been used. (c) Whether it was lawful to use force for such purpose; and, further, the Commissioner was asked to make any such recommendations as he might think proper concerning tho future conduct of the institution. CHECKING STATEMENTS. "Having regard to the subject of the inquiry," states Mr. Hewitt, "I knew that t might expect to meet exaggera tion on the one hand and prevarication on the other, and I approached it with this in mind, checking the statement of one against that of another, and examining each person with reference to the statements of others. I have been able to discover little or no exaggeration in the statements of the. prisoners. So far as I have been able to check them they are fair and truthful. There are, of course, discrepancies, but I have found none that I can with certainty put down to dishonest motive; on the other hand, I am satisfied that many ■of the state. ments made to me by members of-the barracks staff were untrue. In the main the statements contained in the letter to Truth are true, and I obtained evidence of several other things that are not referred to in it. There is, however, about the lotter an exaggeration of style I that tends to give a heightened impres sion as to some of ,the incidents narrated. SYSTEM OF "BREAKING IN." "Each newcomer as he came in was warned by the other prisoners of what ho might expect if he snowed any opposition to wearing the uniform or drilling. Guard Byrne says he heard Mcvynihan saying to another prisoner, 'It's not a bit of good for a man coming into the barracks and saying he won't carry out the rules. I know it. They made me do it, and if they can make me do it they can make anyone do it.' Byrne then adds, "Wha-t Moynihan said was perfectly tTue, when we made up our | minds that they must do it, we made j them do it. If they had done it at the j beginning there would have been no J trouble." Byrno warned Donovan or what he had to expect, and advised him to submit, giving me as his reason, "That he had had enough of it with Moynihan. Monyihan was a marvel of a man to stand what he did.' "Generally speaking, 'breaking in' was> accomplished in this way: A weighted pack was put on the prisoner's back and a rifle fastened to his side by means of handcuffs and a piece of cord, one handcuff being attached to the stock of the rifle, and the other to the prisoner's wrist, the barrel was tied by the cord to his shoulder. If he was wearing a uniform, instead of being tied to the shouldor the barrel was passed through the shoulder-strap. The prisoner was then ordered to march, and if he did not ! march he was pushed from behind, and helped along by the arms round the yard. When he came to a corner he was pushed so as to bump against the wall, often co that he would strike it with his head ; at times he wan punched and thumped on the back and on the neck and his heels were trodden on. In some cases he was kicked. In Donovan's case, which I consider the worst, a rope was used by which to pull him round; water was,thrown on him while on the ground, and he wae dragged for some distance along the floor of the yard. Beatou also was pulled round the yard by means of a cord, and he, Moynihan, and Donovan were caught and pulled by the hair/ From time to time the , men would be stopped and asked if they would wear the uniform and do the rifle drill, and if they refused or would' not reply they were driven round the yard again until they were worn out and exhausted-, and gave in. A GENERAL MELEE. "I find the following matters proved. (1) That on the occasion on which Wilson was forcibly dressed in hie cell he was handcuffed, and while so handcuffed was knocked against the wall of his cell by Corporal I'armenter so as to strike the wall with_ his head. (2) That Moynihan was forcibly dressed on threo occasions on the Sunday on which he was dealt with in the yard—he having between times torn off the uniform or part j of it. That these dressings resulted in a general melee, or, as one of the guards describes it, a 'mix-up.' That while _these things were going on Moynihan had no doubt received some knocks: that he had his head knelt on by one of the guards, and 1 that he received a kick on the chest. lam of the opinion that the kick or knock was one of the general results of the scuffle, and was not intentional. (3) That Badger and Pallesen were dressed in uniform against their wills, but that, ac they offered no resistance, they received no real rough treatment. (4) That Badger had a rifle handcuffed to his wrist, and that he wa3 | kicked and punched by Sergeant Smith while being drilled in the staff yard as | described in his statement.

FRIGHTENING A PRISONER. (5) That on the occasion spoken' of in prisoner Carian's statement, and in the circumstances and in the manner describ. Ed therein, lie was kicked by Guard Williams. (6) That Fitzpatrick was ill-treat-ed in the yard by Lieutenant Crampton and Sergeant Smith. I am unable—owing to Fitzpatrick not being available— to ascertain the full detail of this ill-treat, ment, but I am satisfied that as a result of what happened in the yard Fitzpatrick was bruised on the arm and was bleeding at the ear. (7) That 'the prisoners Badger and Pallesen were spoken to by Lieutenant Crampton on the occasion of his taking their particulars in the office, and by others of the staff on other occasions in the manner described in their statements, and that this treatment was in some ways as hurtful to them as was physical ill-treatment to the other prisoners. (8) That M'Conville was assaulted by Lieutenant Crampton in the yard while undergoing punishment drill. . . . I am unable to say whether M'Conville was actually struck with the rifle; but I am satisfied that Lieutenant Crampton caught M'Conville by the throat, pushed his head against the wall, and at least threatened to strike him, and that tho object of this assault was to frighten M'Conville into taking the uniform kit when it should be offered to him on his arrival at Trentham, and was not done for anything M'Conville was doing or had done or omitted to do in the yard. APPLICATION OF FORCE. "From all the happenings it is quite clear that the object of the application of force was to compel prisoners who objected to do so tjo take the uniform and to do the rifle drill with the general purpose of breaking down opposition to military service. As to whether it was lawful to adopt means of this land to effect this object it is scarcely necessary for me to say anything. If measures of tli« kind

had been used in a civil prison to compel a prisoner to perform tome task there is no doubt as to what would have been said of them. A MILITARY CUSTOM. "It was contended by Lieutenant Crampton that, according to the custom of the service, force similar in kind to that used by him was applied in ail detention barracks, and evidence was adduced to me as to the practice in the Abbasaia and Citadel Detention Barracks at Cairo and in some punishment compounds under Imperial rule in France. From this it appears that force more or less severe is-iiEed-as punishment and to reduce refractory prisoners to submission. There was, however, no question of objection to military service with any of these prisoners. They were simply cases of defaulters, some of the riff-raff of the Army. 1 . Strong measures would no doubt have, to be taken in such cases. But whether force of the kind spoken of was or was not used in those places is beeid,e the question. Either the regulations under which they were. conducted were different from those in force in New Zealand, or much of what was said to have been done there was as irregular as was what was done in the present cases.

EXAMPLE FROM WELLINGTON. "Lieutenant Crampton says that, before he took actual charge of the barracks at Wanganui, knowing that ho would have conscientious objectors to deal with, he had visited the Alexandra Barracks, Wellington, for the purpose of seeing in practice the methods applied there. He says ho found discipline in those barracks very bad, that .conscientious objectors were under the control of a corporal, and were allowed to do what they liked. He says that in answer to a question, the corpora) replied, 'What can I do? If I ask them to do something or wear any prison clothing they refuse. They whistle, sing, call out, and count out the military police, and do what they like.' He explained that in consequence of what he saw there he resolved to have a. different state of things in the barracks under his charge; and, if his description of matters at the Alexandra Barracks is correct, it was certainly time a change was brought about there. "I BEAT YOU, OR YOU BEAT ME." { "The defiant objectors give him credit for being quite fair with them. He was determined that military discipline should be maintained in the barracks, and he made this quite plain to them. As soon ac one of them had given in and agreed to 'carry on,' there was nothing to complain of on the part of Lieutenant Crampton. His attitude towards this stamp of man was 'either I beat you, or you beat me, and I'll take care you don't beat me.' He took a short cut towards solving the problem before him, disregarding the fact that prison regulations are binding on all alike, and that, while they call for strict compliance on the part^ of the prisoners, they call with much greater force for compliance from those in whose charge prisoners are placed, and in whose hands they are to a very great extent, helpless dependents. Under the regulations, what appear to me to be ample power of punishment is given to officers in charge. Uhder Regulation 131, they may order close confinement, punishment diet, and deprivation of mattress for any period not exceeding three days. A TECHNICAL POINT. "Had Lieutenant Crampton dealt wjth these prisoners throughout in accordance with this regulation, he would' have been within his rights, but it is very much open to question whether, as a matter of principle, it is right to deal with them at all in this way. It has to be remembered that these men were military objectors—that for refusing their kit, which really means refusing to perform any military doty, they had been sentenced to detention. To 1 again offer them the kit, or part of it, or to require them to perform acts of a military nature while under detention, and to further punish them for refusal, is in effect to punish- them twice for the same offence. If, the court-martial had power to order 'bread and water,' or to impose other conditions as part of the original sentence for refusing the kit, good and well; it could, if it wished, have done so. But, if such' a Court had not that power, or if it had refrained from exercising it, it is not proper for the ■ punishment awarded by the court-martial for a particular offence to be increased by other means because of a repetition of that offence during the period covered by the original term. FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER. "It is not within my province to discuss the general question of the treatment of object-ore. Ranging as they do from the shameless coward and the open rebel to the man who, whatever may be thought of tho soundness of his principles, is sincere, and is prepared to sacrifice everything of them, it is difficult to devise a means of treatment applicable to all cases. I submit the following recommendations as to the future conduct of the institution :— (1) That the barracks be used as a place of detention for military offenders only, and that objectors to military service should not be sent there. (2) That the personnel of the staff be changed. So far. as I can ascertain, none of 1 the present staff possesses any experience or particular qualification fitting him for this kind of work; some are clearly quite unfit to act as prison' warders. I suggest that the new staff be composed of specially-chosen men, none under the rank of a non-commissioned officer. (3) That, in addition to the military official visitors provided for by Regulation 41, the Minister should appoint suitable persons, being civilians with I ■duties and powers similar to those of ii, visiting justice of a civil prison, and I that all members of the Prisons Board, the Inspector and Deputy-Inspector of Prisons and the Stipendiary Magistrate of the district be so appointed exofficio.