BAUME'S RELEASE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17186, 9 November 1926, Page 4

BAUME'S RELEASE

A REPLY TO CHARGES WAS IT JUSTIFIED? (Per Prew Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. The Minister of Justice made the. following statements to-day in references to the recent charges made by the Rev. Howard Elliott: — "Mr. Elliott's charges fall under two heads, one as to whether certain prisoners should have been released, or not, and the other as to whether preferential treatment has been granted by the Prisons authorities to Baume. "As to tho first I have alreadystated through the press that when prisoners are sentenced to reformative treatment the actual term of detention is determined by the Prisons Board, a statutory body "set up under the provisions of "the Crimes Act, 1910, and presided over by one of the senior judges of the Supreme Court. When the judge at the trial imposes a sentence of reformative detention, in effect he hands over the case to the Prisons Board, which meets at periodic intervals during the year to decide in each individual case whether the punishment has served its purpose, and whether there is a reasonable probability that the offender will abstain from crime and lead a useful and industrious life. "In the case of Baume, the judge at the trial (Mr. Justice Alpers) emphasised this aspect of the case, and said in so many words when Baume to a period of detention not exceeding three, years that the actual duration of his sentence would depend on bis own.conduct and on the recommendations of the ' Board. CONFIDENCE IN BOARD. "The Government has full confidence in the members of the board, several of whom have been associated with the work since the institution of the Board in 1910. No Minister of Justice, to my knowledge, has ever questioned any recommendation made by the board, and unless it was a case where the board had not the whole facts before them the Minister would not, in my opinion, bo justified in questioning their decision. I have always regarded the Prisons Board as a "judicial body whoso decisions are more open to review by the. Department of Justice than those of any other tribunal. "The suggestions that judges of our Supreme Court are subject to any influence, social or otherwise, is so unwarranted as not to call for any reply as far as I am personally concerned. No one ever approached me in any manner directly or indirectly in the matter of Baume's release. "If the system is wrong under which the Prisons Board has functioned for the last 16 years, then that is a matter for tTie Legislature and the Act of 1910 will have to be repealed. "In regard to preferential treatment being accorded to Baume, the Prisons Department has categorically denied Mr. Elliott's statements. Mr. .Elliott is clearly under a misapprehension as to preferential treatment in contravention of the prisons regulations. He is apparently unaware that the regulations that apply to Borstal inmates are those made under the Prevention of Crime (Borstal Institutions) Act 1924, and are entirely different in their terms from -these made under the Prisons Act."