The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1883.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2826, 13 October 1883, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1883.

One of the most stupid of the many stupid Acts passed by the New Zealand Parliament last session, is the Prisons Act. This is a piece of hasty, sentimental legislation which was prompted by the disclosures made m the Dunediu Gaol Enquiry. Certain Visiting Justices at Dunedin wcro shown to have 111 ado j fools of themselves, and to have allowed the gaoler to twist them round his little linger. Tho discipline of tho Dunedin gaol was found to be extremely bad, and tho Visiting Justices, instead of searching out the cause of tho evil, namely, tho gaoler's incotupctency, doalt merely with the symptoms by inflicting inordinate punishments on tho wretched prisoners. All the requirements of the case would have been fully met by dispensing with the gaoler's services, removing the Visiting Justices who have proved themselves unfit for their position, and appointing men of sense m their place. Instead of that, some busybodies insisted on the law being altered to r«3trict the powers of Visiting Justices and provide for certain prison offences being tried m the Resident Magistrate's Court. The Government, ■with their usual weakness, gave way, and the Prisons Act was accordingly passed. Under this silly Statute Visiting Justices are forbidden to deal summarily with any but " minor " prison offences ; but arc empowered to order all charges of " aggravated " prison offences to be reheard and disposed of m the Resident Magistrate's Court. The definition given m the Act of minor prison offences and aggravated prison offences respectively, is of the vaguest description. For example, "auy misconduct subversive of the peace, order or good government of the prison" is declared to be a minor prison offence; but " any act of gross misconduct or insubordination " iB declared to be an aggravated prison offence. The whole distinction, as far as we can make out the meaning of the words of the Act, lies m tho interpretation of the exceedingly loose term " gross." Thero is no word m the English language, perhaps, that is more elastic or wanting m precision than this same word " gross." iTet the Legislature deliberately made the whole machinery of prison discipline depend on the arbitrary interpretation of that word. What is worse, they failed to make it clear who is to be the interpreter. The 7th clause of the Act says : — " When any prisoner shall be found " upon such hearing and examination " to have committed an aggravated " prison offence as hereinafter specified, " the Visiting Justice hearing the " charge shall direct the same to be " reheard m open Court before a Resi- " dent Magistrate or two Justices of " the Peace sitting at the nearest Resi- " dent Magistrate's Court or other " Court where snmmary jurisdiction is " ordinarily esercised ; and upon such " rehearing the Resident Magistrate or " Justices hearing the said charge may " punish such offence " by such and such penalties. From this it would seem that the Visiting Justice is clearly the person appointed by the Act to decide whether any offence is a minor prison offence or an aggravated prison offence. If he deems it to be a minor prison offence then he may deal with it himself by ordering the prisoner to be kept m solitary confinement, or put m irons, to be fed on bread and water, or m other ways. If, on the other hand, he deems it to be an aggravated prison offence, then he may send it to the Resident Magistrate, who is empowered to inflict much heavier penalties. In short, the jurisdiction of the Visiting Justice is confined to minor cases while that of tho Resident Magistrate extends to the most serious cases of prison offences. Now, common sense would appear to indicate that tho greater jurisdiction includes the less, and that, though the Visiting Justice may only deal with minor offences, the Resident Magistrate may deal with all cases whatsoever which the Visiting Justice may choose to send to him. Common sense, however, we now learn, is not m harmony with the law ; a circumstance, we grieve to say, which is only too common m New Zealand. The first attempt to put the Act into operation has broken down utterly. A prisoner m the Dunedin Gaol named Tate, a thoroughly bad character, and a habitual offender against prison discipline, had defied the authority of the officials. He was brought before the Visiting Justice who, after hearing the charge, decided that Tate had committed an aggravated prison offence, and oi'dered him to be brought before the Resident Magistrate. The prisoner, of course, employed counsel to defend him, and when the case came into Court, it turned entirely upon a question of law. The question was not whether the man was guilty of the misnonduet with which he was charged; but whether that misconduct constituted " an aggravated prison offence " within the meaning of the Act ; and, if not, whether the Resident Magistrate had power to deal with it. The Resident Magistrate decided that the man was guilty, and richly deserved to be punished ; but that his misconduct was not " gross " enough to constitute an aggravated offence ; and that therefore he had no power to deal with the case. The Governor of the gaol, a most efficient officer, justly contended that such a decision was entirely subversive of all discipline; and pointed out that the Visiting Justice having declared Tato's misconduct an aggravated prison offence, he had Ho alternative but to

bring it before the Resident Magistrate, f He wanted to know how he was to keep I discipline if neither the Visiting Justice c nor the Resident Magistrate would support his authority by punishing an ' insubordinate prisoner. The Resident , • Magistrate, however, determined to abide 1 by the strict letter of the law, I us he read it, and forthwith dismissed I the case. Thus the prisoner not only ' . had the satisfaction of defying the j , nutboritj of the gaol officials with impunity, bnt also got a pleasant outing, t and returned m triumph to spread m- , r subordination among his fellow prir soners. : In fact, the Prisons Act 1883 is r neither more uor less than an Act for j encouraging misconduct m prisons, and paralysing the gaolers and their ofiicers m their efforts to maintain discipline.