THE MOTUIHI AFFAIR. COURT OF INQUIRY.

Colonist, Volume LX, Issue 14620, 26 January 1918, Page 4

THE MOTUIHI AFFAIR.

COURT OF INQUIRY.

SCOPE OF COUIiT-MAimAL,

(United Press Association.)

■ -.- Wellington, Jan. 25. lv respect of the escape of prisoners from Motuihi, the following information has been given out by the Defence Department for publication:— A Court-martial; GeLeral will assemble at Auckland on January 29th for the purpose of trying LieutenantColonel C. H. Turner. The personnel of the court will be:—President, Colonel N. P. Adams C.M.G.; members, Lieu-tenant-Colonels J. L. Sleeman, D. Pnngle, E. W. Porritt, J. A. P Frederick, J; Deans, and F. T. Bellrmger • waiting members, Lieutenant-Colonels j' P. btevenson and T. H. Steadman. The Judge Advocate-General will be present and will act as Judge Advocate. Captain P. E. Baldwin has been appointed prosecutor.

The charge upon which LieutenantColonel Turner will be tried is laid under section 20 (2) of the Army Act, and is as set out in the following charge sheet:—The accused, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Harcourt Turner, sth (Wellington) Regiment, being a member of the Defence Forces of New Zealand, is charged with:—

First charge-: Without reasonable excuse allowing the escape of persons committed to his charge, in that he, at Motuihi Island, on or about 13th December, 3917, while Commandant of the said island, and having the care, - charge, and custody upon the said island of certain .prisoners of war and alien enemies, to wit, one LieutenantCommandor Count yon Luckner Lieutenant kirwheiss, Wireless Operator Grun, Wu'eiftw Engineer Freund. Naval Cadets yon Zalorski, Paulsen, Schmidt, Mellert, and klohm, Seaman Erdmann and one Yon ISgidy, a Sanioan Government official, allowed the said Commander Count yon Luckner and the others mentioned, being prisoners of war or interned alien enemies, to obtain possession of a launch and make othei preparations for their escape without taking reasonable means to prevent it, and thiyy permitted the escape of the said Lieutenant-Commander Count yon Luckner and the other persons mentioned.

Second charge: Without reasonable excuse allowing the escape of persons whom it was his duty to keep, in having done the acts alleged in the particulars of the first charge. Third charge: Without reasonable excuse allowing the escape of persons it was his duty to guard, in having done the acts alleged in tho particulars of the first charge.

On January 31st a Court of Inquiry will assemble at Auckland for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the responsibility of v Colonel G. W. S. Patterson and Major J. OsburneLilly in respect of the escape of prisoners from -Motuihi Island. The personnel of the court will be: President, Colonel N. P. Adams, C.M.G.; members, Majors K. A. Cooper and W. H. Fletcher.

The issues; upon which the court will report are «s per attached copies "A," "B," and "Q":—

''A": Was the Commandant of Motuihi directly responsible to Headquarters, Wellington, or to District Headquarters, Auckland, for the custody of prisoners of war?

"B": As to Colonel G. Vv. S. Patterson, (1) was it the duty of Colonel Patterson xo ensure that proper precautions were taken to guard prisoners at Motuihi Island?

(2) If it was his duty, did lie take reasonable steps to carry out such duty? (3) If it was his duty, and if he did not take reasonable steps to carry out such duty, did his failure to do 6», contribute towards the escape of the prisoners?

(4) If ifc was his duty, and if he diet not take reasonable steps to carry out such duty, was his failure to do so due to culpable negligence, to negligence, to misconception of the duty cast upon him, or to error of judgment ? As to Major Osburne-Lilly :— (1) Was Major Lilly aware of the inadequacy of the precautions for saleguarding prisoners ? (2) Did the duty of .Major Lilly as a Staff officer, trequire that lie should takeany steps to remedy sucli inadequacy? . (3) If Major Lilly was aware of the inadequacy, and if it was his duty to take steps to remedy the inadequacy, did he take reasonable steps to do so? (4) If Major Lilly failed to take steps, to remedy the inadequacy, did his failure to take such stops contribute to the escape of tho prisoners H (5) If Major Lilly failed to take such steps, was his failure duo to culpable neglect, to neglect, to misconception of the duty cast upon him, or to error of judgment?

This Court of Inquiry will be held under the same arrangements as the. previous Court of inquiry, that is to say, it will be open to the press, and evidence as authorised by the president of the court may be published. It is to be noted that permitting this Court of Inquiry and the previous. Couit of inquiry to be open to the press, with consequent publication of evidence, is an unusual proceeding, and was only allowed on this occasion on account of the great public interest that was excited over the event. The departure from the proper and usual course has aireadv caused some complications, and it must not bo taken as a precedent. It is intended that future Courts of Inquiry will be held, as they should be held, in camera, and will not be open to tb© public or the press.