BAUME ENQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 November 1926, Page 5

BAUME ENQUIRY

COMMISSIONER’S REPORT, PRISON OFFICIALS UPHELD. i (Per Press. Association.) WELLINGTON, November 29, The report of. Mr W. G. Riddell S.M., concerning the Baume case, was released for publication by the Minister of Justice (Mr Rolleston) today. It exculpates the prison officials in the matter of Mr Howard Elliott's allegations that Baume was given preferential treatment while at Terrace Gaol, or on the journey to Waikeria, Mr Riddell refers to the fact that he had held the objection raised by Mr Boyes (Elliott’s solicitor) that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the case, was groundless, and records that Mr Boyes then intimated he would take no part in the examination of witnesses tendered by the Prisons Department. In regard- to the allegation that

Baume was allowed to wear civilian clothes and. pyjamas etc., the Magistrate reported that. Regulation 211, does not apply to offenders committed ,to the Borstal Institution, but to ordinary . prisoners. The evidence showed that Borstal detainees were allowed to wear their own clothes, if transferred to a Borstal Institution within a reasonable time, and also that Baume was not allowed to keep his attache case in the cell. Baume was kept apart from other prisoners in accordance with the regulations, and he was required to get up, and did get up, at the stupe hour as the other prisoners, 6.30 a.m. Eggs and milk were supplied to him under authority of Dr Gilmer, Prison Medical Officer, and similar food was given to other prisoners when prescribed by that official. Five eggs were supplied to Baume in six days, but the Chief Warder denied that he acted as waiter, and the Magistrate accepted that statement. ■ •

. Asa Borstal detainee Baume had to be kept apart from the other prisoners, and this was done. Baume was the only' Borstal detainee in prison at the time, and naturally was placed in the boys’ yard by himself. The evidence showed that where a Borstal detainee was in prison pending transfer, it was not customary to require him to do any work at the prison. The usual practice was carried out in Baume’s case.

It was also shown that Borstal detainees are not placed in the ordinary prison garb whilst detained pending transfer, and that the practice was carried out in regard to Baume, Only three, not seven or eight, Borstal detainees were in the Terrace Prison on November 4, and these were not dressed in prison garb, but in hospital blues, on account Ox the delay in transfer and to prevent clothes. The only work they were required to do was to clean up {.he stairs, cell and' range which they occupied. ■ine evidence showed the allegation tha. .mother prisoner was detailed to make Baume’s bed was untrue.

Mr. Elliott had said, that Jiis experience of prisons, prisoners and prison administration had extended over eighteen years. The Magistrate remarked that if this was so, it was strange that a man of his intelligence should be so ignorant of the differencs between prison regulations and Borstal regulations.

“After consideration of the allegations and the evidence in reply to them,” states Mr. Riddell, “1 find that some are untrue, and other allegations are so trivial that no one with a knowledge of regulations, which apply to different classes of prisoners, or with any idea of value of the words, would waste time in making them, and all are easily explainable when the circumstances surrounding Baumd’s stay in the Terrace Prison are made known. It would have been more satisfactory if Mr. Elliott had appeared at the enquiry, and produced the Affidavits which . he says contained the allegations published by him, regardless of their truth or falsity. The fact that he refused to appear and •upport the statements upon which he relied to show preferential treatment by prison officials, or to listen to their explanations in answer to his allegations, raises a strong presumution that he did not know whether the allegations were true or false; that he took io reasonable precaution to verify them, and was not in the least concerned whether or not they reflected upon the honesty and integrity of prison officials. Further comment is unnecessary. The result of the inquiiy satisfied me that no such preferential treatment as alleged by Mr. Elliott was given to Baume, cither when detained in the Terrace Prison, or on the journey to Waikerai institution, ind that the prison officials treated him while under their charge in accordance with the regulations which applied to his case. LABOUR PARTY’S DEMAND. WELLINGTON, Nov. 29. The New Zealand Labour Party, in a, statement regarding the alleged preferential treatment of prisoners, praises the legislation in question as wise, and farseeing, and proceeds: — The Labour Party does not in any way associate itself with the hue and cry which has been manufactui ed during the past few months, but in view of the present feeling that thcie is a possibility of preferential treatment having been accorded certain individuals, it is of the opinion that the Government, should make public certain information. If there is ground for a suspicion that the power given is to be used preferentially, if social and financial influence can be brought to bear on persons responsible for. the administration, then the •judicial system will become a byword of reproach, and the evil effect on the life of the- community will bo farreaching. In view of the suspicion and dangerous possiblities mentioned, the Labour Party request the Government to make public the following information: —How many persons shave been ordered to be deta.tin.ed under the' Prevention of Crimes Act, 192-1; (2) length of periods for which detention ordered? («) how many persons have been reelased? (4) original period of detention ordered for those already released? (5) period for which actually detained? (6) what ■reasons were, given to the Minister by those who recommended release? (7) Were any conditions imposed before release was granted? (8) what conditions were imposed, if any? ’ The Labour Party will unhesitatingly condemn any individual or body of individuals who administer the law according to society status or financial considerations, but at the same time assures the Government that they will support® every step that is taken that will give individuals who have transgressed the laws, the right to'"'rehabilitate themselves and' once more become responsible members of society.