"SOME UNTRUE; OTHERS TRIVIAL"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 130, 29 November 1926, Page 10

"SOME UNTRUE; OTHERS TRIVIAL"

NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

TO BAUME

MAGISTRATE EXCULPATES PRISONS OFFICIALS.

In his report upon the inquiry into the treatment of Sydney Erne Baume at the Terrace Prison and en route to Waikeria, Mr. AY. G. Kiddell, S.M., finds that some of the allegations of preferential treatment made by the Rev. Howard Elliott are untrue, while others arc trivial. He exculpates the prison officials, who, he says, treated Baume in accordance with Ihc regulations which applied in his case. The report of the Visiting Justice was released for publication to-day by the Minister of Justice (the Hon. F. J. Rollcston), and is as follows:-— Pursuant to direction, bringing under my notice as Visiting Justice certain alicgations made in the public Press by ono Howard Elliott that Sydney Erne Baume had received preferential treatment while detained in the Terrace Prison at AVellington, and acting under tho powers conferred upon me by section 17 of the Prisons Act, 1908, I duly held an inquiry at the Magistrate's Court, AVellington, on the 23rd November, 192G, into the following matters, which, according to newspaper notices produced at tho hearing, were alleged by the said Howard Elliott to have occurred: — Notice of tho time and place of inquiry was dijly sent on the 18th November to the said Howard Elliott, who, without denying the truth or otherwise of the allegations, advised me that he would not appear at the inquiry. The inquiry was duly held on the 23rd November, when the Prisons Department wero represented by Mr. Macassey, and Mr. Boyes, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the said Howard Elliott, and objected to the proceedings on the ground that I had no jurisdiction in the matter, as the inquiry had been directed by the Hon. the Minister of Justice. I held, that the objection raised was groundless, and duly proceeded with the hearing. Mr. Boyes, as counsel for the said Howard Elliott, then intimated that he would take no part in the examination of any witnesses tendered by the Prisons Department. The following witnesses gave evidence touching the matters under consideration : —Jeremiah Charles Scanlon, retired superintendent of the Terrace Prison; John Dawn, present superintendent of the Terrace Prison; William Robert Cooke, chief warden; Peter Smith AVatters, Arthur Oswald .Bellamy, Bsra A. oodlej', Alexander ' Adamson, Charles Gibson, and Alexander Hayward, warders at the Terrace Prison. The said Sydney Erne Baume was received into the Terrace Prison on the evening of the 4th February, 192 C, and was taken to the Supreme Court for trial on tho sth February, and sentenced on the 6th February to be detained in a Borstal- Institution. On the 12th February he was escorted, along with two reformative detainees, to the AVaikeria Institution. Baume was therefore detained at the Terrace Prison for a period of eight days in all, or six days after he was sentenced. ■ REPLIES TO ALLEGATIONS. Allegation 1 is that Baume, while waiting for more than forty-eight hours for_ transfer, was allowed to wear his civilian clothes and keep other personal belongings in his cell, including" his attache case, containing, his, pyjamas, shaving gear, etc., in contravention of Regulation 211. The regulation referred to does not apply to_ offenders committed.to a Bor-stal-institution, but applies to ordinary prisoners. The evidence shows.that Borstal detainees are allowed to wear their own clothes if they are to bo transferred to a Borstal institution within a reasonable time, and it also shows that Baunio was not allowed to keep his attache case in his cell. Allegation 2: "That Baume was not required to parade with other prisoners." Regulation 9 under tho Prevention of Crime (Borstal Institution) Establishments Act, 1924, provides that whilst a Borstal detainee is kept in any prison he shall as far as possible be kept apart from other prisoners. Tho evidence shows that Baume was kept apart from other prisoners in accordance with the regulation aboveme'ntioncd. Allegation 3: "That Baume was not required to get up till after sunrise." The evidence on this point is that Baunio was required to get up, and did get up, at the 331110 hour as other prisoners, viz., 0.30 a.m. FIVE EGGS IN SIX DAYS. Allegation 4: "That Baunio after conviction was allowed to have eatables other than those provided for in the prison regulations." The evidence showed that eggs and milk were supplied to' Baume under the authority of Dr. Gilmer, the Prison Medical Officer. Similar food is given to other prisoners when prescribed by the prison doctor. Allegation 5: "That Baume was supplied with eggs, and that such eggs were delivered to him in his cell by the chief warder." The evidence shows that under the' doctor's orders five eggs were supplied to Baume over a period of six days, but the chief warder denies that he acted in the capacity of waiter to Baume, and I accept his statement. Allegation 0: "That Baume was kept by himself in the boys' ward, and allowed to sit in the sun." As a Borstal detainee Baunio had to be kept apart from other prisoners, and this was done. Baume was tho only Borstal detainee in the prison at the s time, and naturally ho was placed in the boys' yard by himself. Allegation 7: "That Baume was not put to work at the Terrace Prison." The evidence shows that where a Borstal detainee is in a prison pending transfer, it is not customary to require him to do any work at the prison. The usual practice was carried out in Baume's case.