DETENTION BARRACKS

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 138, 7 December 1918, Page 6

DETENTION BARRACKS

The public of New Zealand must have read with not a little astonishment and unfeigned regret the findings of Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., on the allegations of jjl-treatment of prisoners at the Wanganui Military Detention Barracks. It was suspected by most people that there was some foundation for the re* ports being circulated, but to find the charges so fully proved is perhaps more than anyone, even the friends of the men concerned, expected. " It seems incredible, to say the least of it, that such a state of affairs should have existed in New Zealand, and it is still more difficult to understand why, in the first place, methods of physical violence were applied. As the Magistrate points out, ample power of punishment is given under the regulations to the officers in charge. "Under regulation 131," h» says, "they may order close confinement, punishment diet, and deprivation of mattress for any period not exceeding three days." Such forms of punishment, however, do not appear to have been resorted to. "Breaking-in" methods were preferred. Again, the men were being punished twice for what was practically the same offence—a practice which is totally foreign to the principles of British justice. They were sentenced originally by District Court-martial to detention for refusing to take their kits; yet on entering the detention barracks they were offered their kits again, and on refusing to take them were subjected to the treatment complained of! The Commissioner makes certain recommendations, which we hope will at once be put into effect. The matter, however, should not be allowed to rest there. The general result of the Commissioner's findings are bo serious that the Government must take further action to assure the public that those placed in. responsible positions who are guilty of such conduct will be adequately dealt with.