INQUIRY OPENED IN BAUME CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18011, 23 November 1926, Page 5

INQUIRY OPENED IN BAUME CASE.

COUNSEL FOR HOWARD ELLIOTT PROTESTS. (Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON, November 22. In his capacity as visiting Justice to the Terrace Gaol, Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., held an inquiry to-day under Section 37 of the Prisons Act into certain charges made by Mr Howard Elliott as to the alleged preferential treatment of Baume while in- the Terrace Gaol. Mr Maeassey, Crown Prosecutor, appeared for the Prisons Department. - Mr R. H. Boys said he appeared under instructions from Mr Elliott, who had been served with formal notice of the inquiry. The notice did not require him to appear before the tribunal, and he had no intention of doing so. Mr Boys added that he had been instructed to attend on Mr Elliott’s lpehalf to protest against the inquiry proceeding. He submitted that Mr Riddell had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that there existed no statutory warrant for holding such an inquiry as the present one was declared to be. Counsel’s protest was therefore against the jurisdiction, and he desired to be heard upon that point before the inquiry proceeded to the further stage. The grounds of the protest were as follows: According to the formal notice the inquiry was held at the instigation of the Minister of Justice. It was held under the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1908, and for the purpose of investigating certain allegations made by Mr Elliott. The whole purpose of the inquiry w-as to furnish to the proper officer a report upon the allegations made. As this inquiry was ordered by the Minister and the Magistrate's report must be made to the Minister, counsel submitted that there was no statutory authority for the present inquiry, under the Prisons Act. With all respect, Mr Elliott declined to recognise the Magistrate’s power or jurisdiction to hold the inquiry. Counsel submitted that the proceedings were incompatible with the fundamental principles of British justice. The Department was on trial, and the report of the inquiry must be furnished to the Controller-General of Prisons for inquiry. To proceed would mean the enacting of a solemn farce, the outcome of which must have been apparent from the start. The Court, it it proceeded with the inquiry, could only deal with the statements appear* mg in the newspapers. For the reasons given counsel contended that there were no charges before th eCourt in respect of which any inquiry could be made. The Magistrate said that the inquiry related to the treatment alleged to have been given to Baume while in the Terrace Gaol for a period of only a few days. Evidence was given that there was no unusual delay ’of the transfer of Baume to Waikeria, and that during the interval he was not given any preferential treatment. No instructions were received from the Controller-General in regard to the treatment of Baume. The prison surgeon, Dr Calmer, examined Baume and gave a certificate that he be ‘given milk, chocolate and eggs brought by his mother, as such food, in the opinion of the doctor, was necessary for the boy’s health. It was not unusual on the prison surgeon’s report to give eggs even to long-sen-tence prisoners. Prisoners going to the Borstal Institution wore their own ciothes when being sent there. Pyjamas were provided by the Department for such prisoners. It was usual for prisoners, when being sent to the Borstal Institution, to receive extra food from relatives or the Department for the journey. The superintendent of the gaol said that the statement that seven or eight prisoners under Borstal sentence on November 4 went to work in prison garb was untrue. There were only three Borstal inmates on that date, and they were made to carryout certain duties as provided in the regulations. Mr Riddell ruled that he had jurisdiction. He did not intend to make a statement at the present time, but would report in due course.