(76)
Meeting held on Saturday, 20th June, 1896.
Present:-His Honour Mr. T. SERCOMBE SMITH, (Acting Puisne Judge), Chairman.
Hon. Commander W. C. H. HASTINGS, R.N., Acting Police Magistrate.
Dr. ATKINSON, Acting Colonial Surgeon.
Mr. HENRY BRIDGMAN HENDERSON LETHBRIDGE examined.
THE CHAIRMAN-You are Superintendent of Victoria Gaol?
WITNESS-I am.
Q-Mr. LETHBRIDGE, I propose to examine you in three sections as it were. In the first instance I propose to ask you questions regarding the rules; then I propose to ask you questions regarding the cases of prisoners 528 and 704; and then propose to ask you general questions in regard to flogging. Will you turn to the Eules regulating Prison offences and punishments? Under Rule 266 what opportunity is afforded a prisoner of hearing the charges and evidence against him and of making his defence?
[
A—He is brought before me into the adjudication room at an appointed time. The officer who makes the report against him appears and states the nature of the report. The report is interpreted by the interpreter to the prisoner, and the prisoner is then asked what he has to say in his defence. He states his defence and it is interpreted to me. I consider it and deal with the prisoner.
Q-Is the evidence given on oath?
A-No.
*
Q-Are the evidence and the prisoner's defence taken down in writing and kept on record?
A-No.
Q-Why are not those formal steps taken?
A-It has not been the custom in the Prison, and I do not think it is the custom in any prison when hearing cases before the Governor or Superintendent.
Q-In cases requiring the assistance of a Justice of the Peace under Rule 275
is the evidence committed to writing and kept on record?
A-Yes; the evidence in such cases is taken on oath.
Q-There is no provision in the rule that that shall be done?
A-No.
Q-What reason is there for confining the practice to inquiries under Rule 275? A-Because the offences are of a much more serious nature which are tried by a Visiting Justice in conjunction with the Superintendent, and there is a heavier punish- ment liable to be inflicted.
Q-Supposing the Government wanted to know the evidence upon which yon yourself had punished a prisoner, you could hardly supply them with it?
A—No, I could not give word for word what was said; I could give the substance of it.