( 79 )
A-For persistent and aggravated idleness I mean to say that I should whip a man if it was a case where a man had been reported at least three times for not completing his crank task, but not for any other offence. When a man shows that he positively will not complete the task allotted to him.
Q-The question is, does not Rule 272 provide a specific punishment for persistent and aggravated idleness, and by inference exclude punishment under Rule 274?
A-I consider that when a man will not perform his task-I will not say he absolutely refuses to work altogether-but when he persistently refuses to complete his task and minor punishments have failed to make him work then I do not see any other rule under which you can punish a man except Rule 274; such a case must be a case of insubordination.
Q-Then you include bad cases of persistent and aggravated idleness amongst acts of insubordination under Rule 274?
A--Yes.
Q-Referring again to Rule 270, you will observe that repetition of the offences of assaults on a fellow-prisoner and threatening language to any officer or prisoner may be visited by flogging under Rule 274. Does it not occur to you that as repetitions of certain offences mentioned in Rule 270 are specifically adverted to in Rule 274, Rule 274 does not specially apply to repetition of other offences mentioned in 270?
A--No, I do not take it to be confined to the offences specifically mentioned. It goes on to say "any act of insubordination," which I take it means to include any other of those offences which are enumerated in Rule 270 which may be repeated and which may become acts of insubordination.
Q-You say it means any other act of insubordination not already provided for?
A-Yes.
Q-Do you not think that the effect of assigning a special punishment in a rule for a certain offence is to exclude the operation of another rule relating to a different kind of punishment?
A-I think that when the punishment specified in a rule for certain offences has been tried and failed, it becomes compulsory to inflict a heavier punishment. It is. obviously of no use to inflict the same punishment if a man persists in committing the same crime every time. It shows that the punishment is insufficient for the offence.
Q-Though we might be inclined to agree with you on that point, yet the ques- tion is, have you the power to do so?
A-I consider that when a prisoner repeatedly commits an offence against dis- cipline and against the Prison Rules it then becomes "an act of insubordination requiring to be suppressed by extraordinary means," and I have no hesitation in saying that I never felt I was acting contrary to the Regulations in whipping him under Rule 274.
Q-How do you define "disorderly conduct" under Rule 273? Will you give us instance of it ?
A-Shouting, singing, using abusive language.
Q-Obscene language is already provided for by sub-section 3 of Rule 270.
A -The language might not be obscene.
Q-Have you ever whipped a man for repeated acts of disorderly conduct or repeated acts of shouting?
A-No.