There Rules seem to me as flagrant a breach of the Secretary of State's instructions as I have ever read.
In '96 we had a lengthy correspondence with the Governor relative to the use of flogging in the Gaol. In Despatch 19172, we exceptionally strong precautions against abuse of flogging. Inter alia we said "no instrument of flogging shall be used... other than the cat in any case whatever... In all cases too the maximum number of strokes shall be forty. Where the case has been dealt with by the Superintendent, the maximum number of strokes shall be twelve. In no case shall be as it were... the Superintendent shall be present..." (looked at all as 201).
In view of this Despatch, Ord 5 of 47 was introduced to amend the law in regard to flogging.
These Rules are framed under Ord 29 & Instructions from the Governor in Council with looked chs with surfaces.
The Flogging provisions of these Rules (see Ss 290-294) are in strict violation of the above quoted Despatch of Ord of 1897.
They empower the Asst. Supt to flog & to authorize a maximum penalty of fifteen strokes, they allow Visiting Justices to inflict thirty strokes & they reintroduce the cat.
Firstly, I should telegraph home that these Rules are disallowed. See my Despatch of 11 August 1954. Prison Rules of March 97 should be reintroduced for present Despatch follows by mail.
I should amplify in a Despatch saying that the Rules as proposed above are not approved.
I should also tell the Governor that the Prison Rules which were amended in 1897 after careful enquiry & lengthy correspondence should not have been repealed & amended in essential particulars without the S of S's approval & I should point out that the Flogging provisions are not only contrary to Despatch of 97. I should say that this Ordinance is illegal.
The power to flog must not be allowed where it is not applied to Hosgi CPL prison Ex must allude to Brdu, the power where IE tht.
--12635-2000-190
I am not prepared to consider any amendments of the Regulations approved in 1897, unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the S of S.
When the rearrangement of duties proposed in this Despatch is introduced, some amendments of those Regulations will doubtless be required.
And I should express surprise that Regulations (in direct contravention to the S of S's instructions) should have been submitted without any explanation. [Sir H. Blake himself was probably aware of the above quoted Despatch, "but surely his may should have overlooked it.]
GR1178/1922/32(III)
Page 587
Page 587
Page 587
--end of page--
--start of next page--
Page 588
Page 588
Page 588
was removed and the relevant information was directly formatted into HTML as per the instructions. The response now directly outputs the proofread text in HTML format.!
There Reeles seem to me as
flagrant a
breach.
of the
Secretary of State's Justinctions as I have ever reaw
abuse
In '96 we had a lengthy corn: with the your relative to the of Hogging in the Gaol Ilaire deren exceptionally strong precautions against abuse of flogging in Despatch
19172
in consequence
ow
*Inter alia we
said" no instrument of flogging shall be used... other than the wich in any care whatever.. In all cases too the maximum number of stroker shall
her shall x The $40 twenty. Where the case has been dealt lümler with by the Sceperintendent allows the maximum number of slithers
prescut twelve
at all floggings them to the
in no case
shall be as it û t
x
the Superintendent shall be present.."
(lookes \allas 201
In wint of this Despatch Ore 5 of 47 was introduced to amend the law in ingard to flogging.
munales
These Ruler an framed under Ord you 29 & Iuste from the
9 VO
that when that Ord: was red the inte powers conferred to making Reclas were
on the Gour
in Council with
lovked
chs with surfaces.
The Flogging provisions of these Rules (see Ss 290-294)an
brutally are in sinct violation of the
"alove quotex Despatch a of Ord of 1897.
X
They empower the Asst. Supt to floy & to authorine an maximum pentally of fifteen strokes, they allow Visiting
inflict thinly stroker & they reintroduce
Justères
the fat.
Fristly I should letografli
af houtmments not affired. Rules disallowed. See
#
as to plogging
my Darpatch of 11 August 954. Prison Ruler of March. 97
Kare did that
lisant in
This a
should be reintroduced for present Desfalch follows by mail.
587
I should amplify in a Despatch saying write
affli the apple as proposed alove.
I should alles till the your that the Prison Rules which were amended in 1897 after carful equin 8 lengthy correspondance should not have bead repealed & amended in essential particulars without the 5 of 5's approval & Ishould nee
superneguali pout out that the
Felyging pearsons are [not only) conting to distruction of Did I of 97.) I should way
This ordinamen
[litlegal
dover me not apply to
Hosgi
CPL
prism
Ex
must allat
Siapé to
Brdu,
the power
where IE
tht.
--12635-2000-190
in crew
that without good cause showwa
saliifactory
the
sofs
is is not prepared
amendmente
explanatory report
to consider
any
of the Regulations
approved in 1897, the if I when the
rearrange.
ment of duties proposed in this Paspatch is introduced some amendments of those Regulations wile doubtless be requires a
to
And I should express surprise th
which ar
Regulations; (in duid continvention to the
$
5 of 5's instructions should have been submitted with at any explanation [SiH. Blake himself was probably
of the
alove quotes Despatch," "but surely his may should
have overlooked it.] 7.1m 291 SMJ 21
hot
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.