GIRL IN PRISON

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 276, 4 November 1933, Page 9

GIRL IN PRISON

WRONGFULLY DETAINED CHILDREN’S COURT ACTION. CONDEMNED BY JUDGE. By Telegraph—Press Association. AUCKLAND, Nov. 2. Condemnation ol the action of the Children’s Court in illegally committing an 18-year-old girl to the Borstal institution was voiced by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court when application was macle lor a writ of habeas corpus for the release from custody of Annie Lillian Matheson, on the ground that she was wrongfully detained in Mount Eden prison. . His Honour, in ordering the immediate discharge ot the girl from prison, said that the proceedings of the Children’s Court m the ease disclosed an extraordinary state of affairs, the Court acting entirely beyond its jurisdiction. Mr Hall Skelton, who appeared for the girl, said that the applicant was a well-known Scottish singing and dancing girl. She was tho daughter of Pipe-Major Matheson, formerly of the Seaforth Highlanders, who had a distinguished war record in the British Army. Three years ago the mother, who was a strict Presbyterian, had a slight disagreement with her daughter over the girl’s habit of attending public dances, and spoke to Major Annie Gordon, of the Salvation Army, about her daughter’s behaviour. Major Gordon thereupon had the girl brought before a Magistrate on a charge of being idle and disorderly and having no visible means of support, and she was lodged in the police lock-up. Tho charge was heard in the Police Court on April 17, 1931, and the Magistrate remanded her to appear in the Children’s Court in a fortnight. FRIGHTENED TO DEATH. “The girl says she did not speak while the proceedings were in progress, as she was bewildered, staggered and frightened to death,” said counsel. “She was only 16, and her parents were virtually newcomers in a strange country. On May 2 the girl went with Major Gordon to the Children’s Court, but there was no sitting and she was told to como back on May 9. The whole procedure was quite improper, because under the Justices of the Peace Act a remand for a longer period than eight days cannot be ordered without the subject’s consent, and the girl in her affidavit says she gave no consent and that if Major Gordon consented on her behalf, she had no authority from applicant to do so. That was the first irregularity.” The following passage from the girl’s affidavit was read by counsel: —“I asked Major Gordon if I could have a solicitor to appear for me, but she did not lot me have one. I was sent, to the Salvation Army Home after my remand and was not allowed to write to my mother nor to reebivo any communication whatever. As a result of my treatment there I left the home without Major Gordon’s permission and did not appear in the Children’s Court when my case was called on May 9.’’

Counsel said that the next irregularity was that an information instead of a complaint was made concerning the girl in the Children’s Court, and no summons was issued in her absence. She was convicted and discharged on a charge of not having sufficient means of support, although actually she was in receipt of £.l per week from an aunt in Scotland and her parents were well off. However, she was on the same day treated as a delinquent and was sentenced to three years’ confinement in the Borstal Institution in Wellington. She was arrested and served 18 months in the institution when she was released on probation on account of good conduct. PROCEEDINGS QUESTIONED. His Honour: Does this mean that once a report has been made by a child welfare officer any child can forthwith be placed by the Children’s Court under the care of the superintendent of the Welfare Department without evidence or cither appearance or notification of the parents'? Mr. Hubble, who appeared for the gaoler at Mount Eden prison: I have very grave doubts as to the technical correctness of the proceedings. Mr Hall Skelton submitted that the Children’s Court had no power under the Child Welfare Act tn send a child to a Borstal Institution. The right course was to place it under the care of the superintendent of the Child Welfare Department or a child welfare officer. His Honour: It seems plain to me that the Magistrate has no power at all to make an order like that. Mr Hall Skelton said that some time after the girl’s release on probation she went to the wharf one night to meet some Scottish boys who were arriving by the Monowai. She was practically engaged to one of them and had the permission of her parents and of the Rev. Angus McDonald to meet him there.

"She was seen at midnight by someone who sent in a report on her conduct,’’ said counsel, "and as a result of this innocent escapade she had her probation license cancelled. She was arrested by two policemen and was thrown into prison among a number of criminal women without seeing her parents. It is really a very terrible affair.’’ EXTRAORDINARY STATE OF AFFAIRS. His Honour said that the proceedings disclosed an extraordinary state of affairs. "The Children’s Court,’’ he said, "would appear to exercise the powers of a Star Chamber. It is perfectly plain that the legislation deliberately intends to give the Court these extraordinary powers. The Court has power, upon the report of a child welfare officer, to make an order committing the child to the care of the superintendent of child welfare branch of the Education Department, or place it under the supervision of a child welfare officer, and it may do that without the issue of a complaint or summons or without the appearance of anybody, but it is also perfectly clear that, when these matters come before this Court it will strictly construe the powers of the Children’s Court and will see to it that that Court is not allowed to act .beyond its jurisdiction. “The Children’s Court had no power to conun't the girl to a borstal ui-tilu

lion,’’ concluded His Honour. "It could only commit her to tho charge of the superintendent of the child welfare branch or welfare officers. It follows that the order was made entirely without jurisdiction, and all subsequent proceedings are null and veil and of no effect. 'I he applicant is entitled to a writ uf habeas corpus, and tho girl ujII be dischagred from custody forthwith.’’ Mr. Hall Skelton: Has Your Honour power to quash the conviction. His Honour: I do not think so on ih - | t<> ceilings.