( 68 )
Q- Will you turn to Rule 266 under the head of "Prison offences and punish- ment?" I want to go into the question of these Rules. Rule 266 says: "No prisoner shall be punished under the provisions of The Prisons Ordinance, 1885, until he has had an opportunity of hearing the charges and evidence against him, and of making his defence." Was that always carried out in your time?
A-Always.
Q-Rules 270 says: "The following acts are declared to be offences against Prison discipline, and there are eight categories. Rule 271 says: "It shall be lawful for the Superintendent to examine any prisoner touching such offences, and to punish them by ordering any offender to be kept in a punishment cell for not more than three days, on bread, or rice and water, or he may deprive a prisoner of his pork for not more than four meals at one time." Do you take it that that in any way empowers the flogging of a man?
A-No.
Q-Do you take it that Rule 271 specifies the way in which the Superintendent should deal with offences under Rule 270?
A-I should say that the punishment specified in Rule 271 would apply to the offences stated in Rule 270.
Q-Supposing any of the offences stated in Rule 270 are repeated, how do you deal with the prisoners?
A-I should deal with them under Rule 274.
Q-Under what part of the Rule?
means.
>>
A-"Any act of insubordination requiring to be suppressed by extraordinary It would not necessarily follow that I would do it on the second offence. Q-Look at sub-section 6 of Rule 270-" Idleness or negligence at work by any convicted criminal prisoner." Supposing a man was chronically idle or neglected to do his work, would you have power, under Rule 274, to flog him for it?
A-I think so.
Q-How do you interpret Rule 272 which says: "The Superintendent may deprive any prisoner of his evening meal for persistent and aggravated idleness, or refusal to labour ?"
A-Rule 272 has always been worked in this way it has never been applied except in the case of men being discharged next day.
Q-Do you not think that Rule 272 supplies the punishment for cases of persistent and aggravated idleness or refusal to labour?
A-I should not say in the third offence; it might do for the second. As a matter of fact I might say, as regards Rule 272, that it was unworkable in cases of pri- soners staying in the Gaol, because the Medical Officer was never present in the after-
noon.
Q-Could not arrangements have been made for his presence in the afternoon?
A-I suppose he had other duties to perform; he had to attend civil servants and other people.
Q-The point I am driving at is this, that apparently for refusal to do duty and for aggravated and persistent idleness it has been common to punish prisoners under Rule 274, whereas it seems to me that Rule 272 provides specific punishments for specific offences and therefore would exclude the operation of Rule 274 in such cases.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.