SECRET TRIBUNALS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 32, 9 February 1929, Page 8

SECRET TRIBUNALS

(Tfi the Editor.)

Sir,—Some time ago in, your leader column, comment was made on the words of Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., regarding the propriety of conducting the Children's Court as a sort of secret commission. Witii your comment I heartily concur. What surprises me. though, is that the Press has not raised its voice against a still mori. questionable- proceeding—the secret revising of Supreme , Court sentences. .

In the Supreme Court the accused is publicly tried. Evidence is heard and tested. Crown Prosecutor and counsel perform their respective duties, the judge sums up with care; the verdict is given and sentence imposed on the guilty—all this in public. The Court functions fo. the protection of the public, which caa be adequately represented by private citizens and by the public Press. Thus the public conscience is considered and satisfied.

A Prison's Board is, however, empowered at a litter date with closed doors to revise such sentences. The public is locked out. No account of the proceedings is furnished. ■ I do not for a moment suggest the* possibility of corruption, where

the board is concerned. In its high« minded personi"3l, I" can suggest .Ho improvement. But has the public the samo assurances of the integrity and judgment of all the subordinate officers of the Prisons' Department, whose word' must determine the Court's deeiston? In the Supreme Court, police evidence is given on. oath and in public, and is open to rigorou3 challenge on behalf of the accused. Why not the same process in the case of th« board's revision, on prison evidence? Prisoners complain again and again of unaccountable 1 set-backs and who can say that their* complaint is unwarranted? Again and again the heart-sickening agony of hope deferred is experienced and the sessions of the board become oft repeated torture for the prisoner. From one prisoner I have received a description of the misery bordering on despair, resulting from what he calls "this cat and mouse business." , May I suggest that the new Ministey of Justice open the door of the Prison's Board and make of the proceedings a, "rue judicial process. It is ,owed to the iprisoners; it is due to a British public.— I am, etc., KATHLEEN MAVOURNEEN7 Napier, 7th February. [Inquiries show that the Prisons Board is comprised of citizens of the highsst repute, and is presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court to ensure that it will have the full confidence of the public. The board does not presume! to re-try cases, .but merely expresses an expert opinion as to whether it considers that an individual may, with safety to eociety, be released. The greatest objection to publicity is that it would be undesirable to revive and bring under public notice the names of persons who' have servjd a term of imprisonment, and who are deemed to have expiated their offences. A person has a considerably greater change of rehabilitating himself if hs can quietly resume his place in society with the past forgotten as far as possible.]