THE MATHESON CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 142, 13 December 1933, Page 10

THE MATHESON CASE

GIRL SENT TO BORSTAL

COURT PROCEDURE

COMPENSATION CLAIM

Further evidence was heard before the Select Committee of the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon on the petition of Annie Lillian Matheson, of Auckland, for £1050 for alleged wrongful imprisonment. Tho Leader of the Opposition (Mr. M. J. Savage) was in charge of tho petition, and Mr. G. Skolton (Auckland) appeared .for the petitioner. Mr. F. Lye was Chairman of the Committee. • Mr. B. L. Dallard, Under-Secretary of the Department of Justice, speaking on behalf of the Department, said that thero had been a good deal of misunderstanding and confusion of thought in regard to tho representations made to the Committee. This was due to the failure to appreciate the fundamental difference between the Children's Court and the ordinary Criminal Court, The Children's Court was essentially a Court of correction with a looseness of procedure, to enable the Court. to inquire not into a particular offence, but rather into all the surrounding circumstances, such as the conditions in which the child lived, to enable the Court to determine what was the best method of dealing with the child. Tho offence itself loomed very little in the Children's Court. ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES. Much had been made of the remand for more than eight days,- but the adjournment of a case might be for an indefinite time. This was a summary case. Much had been made of_ the fact that the parents were not notified, but the police papers showed that they were notified. A senior Magistrate in Auckland was not likely to deliberately set aside the rights and interests of the parents in an endeavour to punish the child. '*I suggest that if there has been anything at all in the matter it has been an irregularity of construction placed on laws which are designedly loose,'' said Mr. Dallard. He did not believe that the petitioner realised or appreciated the meaning of the publicity which had been pushed upon her. The right to come before a Parliamentary Committee should only be exercised when the legal remedies had been exhausted, and the very fact of the girl coming to the Committee showed a weak case as far as legal remedies were concerned. The statement of the petitioner was an extraordinary one,' suggesting her as an innocent choir girl, suffering from the attacks of the police and busybody social workers. PUBLIC AROUSED. The Chairman: That Is not in the petition. Mr. Dallard: It has appeared in the papers, and I am entitled to use that expression. Public feeling had been aroused, continued Mr. Dallard, and the people were concerned whether there had not been a miscarriage of justice. The Chairman said' that he had not read the case in the papers, but the Committee was dealing with the case, and not the public. . Mr. Dallard: I -will withdraw the.suggestion of the innocent choir girl, and will confino it to innocent girl. The papers in the case clearly show that it ■was not ''the intervention of any busybody social workers which had resulted in the commitment of the girl to prison, but that the parents were concerned about the wayward nature of this child, and that it was they who approached the police, that Major Gordon was a person held in the highest esteem by Auckland Magistrates, and that she had been asked by the Court to take care of this child. JURISDICTION QUERIED. The law provided for action against a Magistrate personally in any matter in which by law he had exceeded his jurisdiction, and the petitioner would have the right of remedy against him if he had done so, and if .he were proved guilty of an offence, the extent of the damages could be 2d only. The Magistrate had only exceeded his jurisdiction in a matter of form. The learned Judge had said that the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction, but he contended that the Magistrate merely exceeded Ms jurisdiction in a matter of form, and, moreover, the full facts were not placed before the Court. PURPOSE OF CHILDREN'S COURTS. The Chairman: Do you suggest that the trial Judge exceeded his duties? Mr. Dallard: I make no suggestion in regard to the trial Judge; he quite properly made his findings on the faetß presented to him. I wish particularly to draw attention to the question of the Children's Courts. When the Child Welfare Amendment BiU of 1927 was brought down, it was represented that the purpose of the Act was not so much to establish, the offence, as to_ make clear the whole of the surrounding circumstances. It was to break away from rigid formalities that the Children's Court was established. It must be borne in mind that the Children's Court was one of summary jurisdiction, and under the Child Welfare Act the Magistrate was vested with a wide discretion, and the most experienced Magistrates • had wisely made a practice of giving a liberal interpretation to tho requirements of the law in its application to young offenders. ' The petitioner, charged on the complaint of her mother with being "idle and disorderly" under tho Police Offences Act, could have been dealt with summarily^ but the case was adjourned pending further inquiries and to enable the Magistrate to determine what would be the best method of dealing with her, not to determine the degree of punishment, but the best means of salvage. Much was made of the fact that the girl was remanded for more than eight days without her consent, said Mr. Dallard. There was a limit prescribed in respect of remands in indictable cases, but there was no such limit during an adjournment of a case which might be dealt with summarily. The adjournment was, by consent, expressly noted by Mr. Hunt, S.M., who dealt with the matter. When tho ease came np again for hearing Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., considered it more appropriate for a charge to be laid under the Child Welfare Act. Tho idle and disorderly charge was nominally disposed of by the girl being convicted and discharged, and the police laid a charge under section 13 of the Child Welfare Act to tho effect that she was "a delinquent child." A MATTER OF FORM. "It would have been, more fitting had she been charged -with not being under proper control,", said Mr. Dallard, "which, is the following clause in the section, but the express nature of the charge was merely a matter of form, and it is provided that no conviction, or order, or proceedings before a Justice, shall be quashed or set aside, or adjudged void, merely for want of form. Sub-section 5 of section 13 provides that a Magistrate may make an order of committal notwithstanding that a complaint has not been made, or a summons issued under sub-section 2. Section 31 of the Child Welfare Act provides that when' a child is brought before the Children's Court charged with any offence, it shall not be necessary for the Court to hear and determine the

charge. Whether or not in any such case the Court determines the charge, it may, in its discretion, after taking into consideration the disposition of the child and other relevant matters, make an order committing ,the child. Soction 19 of the Child Welfare Amendment Act provides that in any judicial proceedings in a Children's Court the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction there sh&U, in relation to thoje proceedings, have all the powers that would be exercisable by him if a Children's Court had not been established; and if ho was sitting elsewhere than in a Children's Court." THE BEST TREATMENT. The Magistrate had decided on Borstal detention as tho best treatment. Had ho not acted under section 19 he could have only committed the petitionor to some institution under tho Child Welfare Act. Had he done this the child would have later been sent to the Borstal. Instead of that roundabout courso he had constituted the Children's Court as an ordinary Court of summary jurisdiction, and had dealt with the caso in the manner complained of. The Magistrate had taken tho com-mon-sense view. Whether this constituted an irregularity of form or an irregularity of procedure was a matter upon which the trial Judge had expressed an opinion. QUESTION OF CHARACTER. The Chairman that the Committee was concerned not with the character of the petitioner, but rather with the question of compensation for wrongful imprisonment. Mr. Ballard submitted that the girl had not lost anything in regard to Character, because she had already dissipated her character. In regard to her associations at the Borstal the girl herself had reported to Sister Esther that she had benefited considerably by the treatment she had got there. Tho Chairman: Do you think any reasonable exception can be taken to the petitioner making a claim for compensation, considering that had the other course been taken she might not have been detained in a Borstal? Mr. Dallard: In that case she would have had a perfect right to claim a sum in compensation, but the Committee will take into consideration whether the girl's conduct was such as to justify the treatment given her. Tho Chairman: Do- you say that the petitioner has not suffered severely as the result of mental strain by her association with these people? Mr. Dallard: Her moral character has not been damaged; it was damaged before she .went., As far as'her knowledge was concerned, she was as knowledgeable in world affairs as any inmate of the institution. The Chairman: Had tho proper course been followed, and tho petitioner been before the Court, would she have had the right to have counsel represent her? COUNSEL NOT REFUSED. Mr.•Dallard: Her parents being notified would have permitted her to be represented by counsel.' It is not true that she was refused permission to have counsel. The Chairman: Have you any knowledge that petitioner did make representations to Major Gordon, and was refused the right to get into touch with her counsel, or even with her parents? Is Major Gordon as Probation Officer, Judge, and jury in cases like this? Mr. Dallard: That is a gross misrepresentation. Major Gordon is merely a woman's officer there. . Her statement is based on reports made to her in this caso by the girl's mother. The Chairman: Would she have the right to refuse petitioner permission to communicate with her parents or solicitor? Mr. Dallard: She would have no right to- refuse, and she definitely did'not refuse. Major Gordon's statement says that is quite untrue. Had she written letters that would have been recorded. Permission to write letters was never denied. The Chairman: Who did lay tho information that she was a delinquent child? Mr. Dallard: The police laid that information at the Magistrate's direction. That is the whole position —that the Magistrate endeavoured to deal with the facts of the case rather than with the formalities of the case. TWO STATEMENTS. The Chairman: There is a statement on the file where petitioner makes a, statement and adds her signature to it but does not make any admission of misconduct, but there is another state-ment-which petitioner says she did not sign, but there is an admission on it. The same night, I believe, on being taken to the watch house, she was questioned, and a statement was taken down and duly signed, and it is stated by the petitioner that in that statement she made no admission. That seems rather conflicting. Mr. Dallard: You are inferring that possibly under stress or pressure she would make an admission she would not make if she were freer? The Chairman: There are tw statements on the.same evening, one signed by a constable, of admission, and one signed by her, in which she makes no admission., Would the constable's statement be taken by a Magistrate in preference to the one made by her? Mr. Dallard: .Mr. Cutten; in dealing with this case, would question the girl and satisfy himself as to her credibility, and would then determine. He might not have taken notice of that statement at all, because there is sufficient in the mother's. Mr. Dallard was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Skelton, counsel for the petitioner, and by Mr. E. Semple, M.P. Asked by counsel for petitioner if ho was aware that Mr. Cutten was now out of New Zealand, was unlikely to come back, and was reported to have no assets, Mr. Dallard said that He was not. Mr. Skelton: Would you expect petitioner to take action against him? Mr. Dallard: The law provides the remedy. ' Taxed by counsel with bringing all the filth possible before tho ■Committee to justify officials, Mr. Dallard said the intention was not to justify the officials but to prove facts. Possibly tho petitioner had been encouraged to indulge in publicity because of the possibility of getting more out of ' the Committee than out of the impecunious Mr. Cutten. Mr. Skelton: You assume our motives are improper? Mr. Dallard: Your motives are £1000 plus £50 expenses. Mr. Skelton: Would you be surprised to know that our £.50 has been paid? Mr. Dallard: I should not be surprised at all, because I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Mathnson are respectable people. Evidence as to the facts brought before the police in regard to the petitioner's behaviour and character was given by Inspector Cummings, after which tho Committee adjourned until 10 a.m. today.