(85)
A-It all hinges upon what you call "any act of insubordination."
Hon. Commander HASTINGS-Some time ago a man threw a shot at you?
WITNESS-That is personal violence to an officer of the Prison and comes under Rule 274, and is mentioned in Rule 274 as an offence which renders a prisoner liable to corporal punishment. You are referring to offences which I deal with myself?
THE CHAIRMAN-I want to know what that word "offence" means in Rule 275, at the beginning. Now look at the latter part of Rule 275 "Or in the case of a male prisoner guilty of any offence in the preceding Rule"-that is Rule 274-"by personal correction not exceeding thirty-six strokes if an adult, nor twelve if a juvenile." That clearly draws a distinction between an offence in the first part of Rule 275 and between a breach of discipline and the offences in Rule 274, does it not?
A-Yes.
Q-Taking the two parts of this Rule 275 as constituting various sets of punish- ments for various sets of offences, do you not think that the Rule emphasises the fact that for offences of breaches of the Prison discipline under Rule 270 you may not punish by flogging even if they are repeated except the repetitions are also provided for under Rule 274?
A-I think that might be an interpretation of the Rule, certainly. I think the Rules are extremely difficult to interpret; but I think I might state that since I have been here I have never really whipped on my own responsibility except for repeated wilful misconduct and chiefly for refusal to labour.
Q-Do you not think that refusal to labour would be one of the offences coming under the word "offence" used in the first part of Rule 275?
A-It depends upon the nature of the refusal. A man will come off punished for refusal to labour. He goes into the yard; he is put to his labour, and he immediately refuses. Is that man to be made to do his work or is he not? That is the question which I put to myself. I say that when a man goes to prison he has to obey certain rules; he absolutely refuses to obey them and under those circumstances I consider that he has committed an act of insubordination, and under Rule 274, I repeat what I said before, that I have no hesitation whatever in whipping such a prisoner.
Q--That is the interpretation you put upon it?
A-That is the interpretation I put upon it. I quite see what you mean-
-thar these Rules are framed in such a way that they might leave an opening for a misunder- standing.
Q-Then does not the distinction which I have drawn between the two parts of Rule 275 make it clear that the offences for which the punishment of solitary confine- ment, &c. may be imposed are not the same as the offences for which personal correction may be imposed? Is not that so?
A--The Rule seems to point to that.
19
Q-But as the offences for which personal correction may be imposed are the offences in Rule 274, it follows, does it not, first that "offences at the beginning of Rule 275 does not refer to an offence under Rule 274, and next that it does refer to an offence other than those detailed in Rule 274?
A-Yes, that might be a construction.
Q-Now this brings us back to the interpretation of "any act of insubordination requiring to be suppressed by extraordinary means." Are you still of opinion that those words embrace constant refusal to labour?
A--Yes, most certainly.