STAR CHAMBER METHODS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22102, 4 November 1933, Page 12

STAR CHAMBER METHODS

GIRL DETAINED IN BORSTAL POWERS OF (CHILDREN’S COURT JURISDICTION ENTIRELY EXCEEDED j (Per United Press Association-) AUCKLAND, November 3. Condemnation of the action of the Children’s Court in illegally committing an 18-year-old girl to a Borstal institution was voiced by Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court to-day, when application was made for a writ of habeas corpus for the release from custody of Annie Lillian Matheson on the ground that she was wrongfully detained in the Mount Lden Prison. His Honor, in ordering the immediate discharge of the girl from prison, said the proceedings of the Childrens Court in the' case disclosed an extraordinary state of affairs. _ The court had acted entirely beyond its jurisdiction. Mr Hall Skelton, who appeared for the girl, said the applicant was a well-known Scottish singing and dancing girl, the 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 the 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. The 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. “ 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 come 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 the applicant to do so. That was the first irregularity.” . ~ The following passage from the girls affidavit was read by counsel; —“ I asked Major Gordon if I could have a solicitor to appear for me, but she did not let me have one. I was sent to the Salvation Army Home after my remand and was not allowed to write to .my mother or to receive 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 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 the charge of not having sufficient means of support, although actually she was in receipt of £1 per week from an aunt in Scotland and her parents were yell off. On the same day, however, she was 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. His Honor: 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 either the appearance or notification of the parents. Mr Hubble (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 to send the child to the Borstal Institution. The right course was to place it under the care of the superintendent of the Chijd Welfare Department or the child welfare officer. Hia Honor: It seems plain to me that the magistrate had no power at all to make an order like that. Mr Hall Skelton said that some time after the girl’s releasa 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 M'Donald 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. Mr Hubble said that in his view there was an excess of jurisdiction in the original order, and all subsequent acts were consequent upon the original irreguttMr’ Hall Skelton: The whole trouble arose because the mother tried to stop her daughter going to dances. His Honor said 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 , he said, “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 a child to the care of the superintendent of the child welfare branch of the Education Department or place it under the supervision of the 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. _ "There are various irregularities in this case,” continued his Honor. “In the first place, the girl was charged with being idle and disorderly and was then remanded for more than eight days without her consent. Then, apparently without evidence, she .was convicted and discharged, although it is said the patents had means and had a home for her. Un the same day it seems that the police acting under sub-section 1 of section lo of the Child Welfare Act. issued an information that was intended to be a complaint that the girl was deemed to be a delinquent, and on that day, without service or the appearance of the child,, the court made an order committing her to a Borstal institution for three years. “ The Children’s Court had no power to commit the girl to a Borstal institution, concluded his Honor. “It could only commit her to the charge of the superintendent of the child welfare branch or a welfare officer. It follows that the order was made entirely without jurdistion, and all subsequent proceedings are null and void and of no effect. The applicant is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, and the girl will be discharged from custody forthwith.” Mr Hall Skelton; Has your Honor power to quash the conviction? His Honor: I do not think so on these proceedings.