PRISON REFORM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25386, 18 November 1943, Page 4

PRISON REFORM

REPLY TO) SIR HUBERT OSTLER MIS-STATEMENTS ALLEGED A further reply to Sir Hubert Ostler’s criticism of his statements on the subject of prison reform was made last night by Dr D. G. McMillan. “ Sir Hubert’s deductions that I was responsible for the Mount Eden episode are so fantastic,” Dr McMillan said, “ that it is not surprising that he has had to give them a semblance of reality by statements quite contrary to fact. His statement that I ‘went to various prisons accompanied only by a stenographer ’ sounds all right and gives his story the right atmosphere, but the plain fact is that it is completely untrue. Similarly, his lifting of my 1940 statement out of its context and background is as misleading as was his reference to my use of the word ‘ Mr ’ in reference to a prisoner in a letter to a,member of Parliament. Mount Eden Episode

“My statement in 1940 was made in reply to suggestions that the escape was made possible by changes I had made in prison routine. I pointed out, as in my last reply to him, that the routine followed at the time of the escape was the same as had been followed for the past 20 years, and in following usage the warders could not be accused of lacking in care. But the fact remains that it was not the routine originally laid down which would, had it been followed out, have prevented the escape.

“ I repeat,” Dr McMillan said, “ that Sir Hubert’s effort to blame me for the outbreak is unworthy of him. These sporadic bursts of prison trouble occur in prisons in all countries at times—e.g., the last riot at Dartmoor. And prison reform, provided it does not involve a lack of vigilance, is the least potent cause of discontent. “In his report on the Mount Eden episode, the Controller-general of Prisons said: ‘The break was a sporadic happening—an ever-present contingency in a gaol such as Mount Eden.’ In reference to those concerned, the Inspector of Prisons said (I will use letters in place of the prisoners’ names): ‘ A was a persistent escapee from the mental hospital; B has escaped many times (I wonder what Minister or what reforms Sir Hubert blamed on these occasions), and C and D are the type prepared to go to any length to secure their liberty.’ These reports fit in badly with Sir Herbert’s contention that the epiteode was due to my administration, and his deduction is even the more inexcusable for, as he says, he had access to these reports and files. Room for Difference of Opinion

“There is room for a difference of opinion on the methods of penal reform.” Dr McMillan said, “but it is a pity that discussion should be clouded with misrepresentation. Again, I did not say that the services of psychiatrists were never availed of. I said they were not used sufficiently and the details of the case I quoted (one Of many) would prove this to any but the most heavily blinkered. “So, too, with common rooms, and the uses to which they could be put. It is useless for me to enter into a long-range discussion with Sir Hubert on what he imagines I said at the meeting, but which in point of fact I did not say. Suffice it to say that in his report to me the superintendent at Mount Eden said, ‘ There is no common room at this institution which might be utilised for recreation purposes,’ and the Controller-general said, ‘At Mount Eden, apart from the school and the church, which would be unsuitable for the purpose, there is no common room.’ And similarly in other prisons the rooms Sir Hubert would call common rooms are completely unsuitable for recreational purposes. “ One familiar with the dates of construction of the major prisons,” Dr McMillan concluded, “cannot but be amused by Sir Hubert’s statement that in every prison erected since 1920 special provision has been made for a common room.”