( 83 )
Q-The word you think points to an insurrection or open resistance on the part of a number of people?
A--Yes.
Q-By a number of people or by a labour gang wilfully resisting the officers in charge ?
A-Yes.
Q--If the first four classes of offences mentioned in Rule 274 come under no other Rule, do you not think that the fifth class of offences, acts of insubordination, &c., embraces only such acts of insubordination as are not provided for by any other Rule?
A--No, I do not.
Q-But assuming that the fifth class of offences embraces only such acts of insub- ordination as are not provided for by any other Rule, do you not think that this view is strengthened by observing that certain offences punishable under Rules 270 and 271 are only upon repetition made punishable under Rule 274 ? "Aggravated or repeated assault on a fellow-prisoner" is practically a repetition of common assault under Rule 270?
A-Not so.
Q-" Repetition of threatening language" simply means repeated offences under sub-section 5 of Rule 270 ?
A-Yes.
Q-Do you not think that the mention in Rule 274 of repetition of two classes of offences under Rule 270 excludes from the operation of Rule 274 repetition of offences under Rule 270, which are not made punishable under Rule 274 ?
A-No. For instance, if a man persisted in wilfully mismanaging his work—that is mentioned in Rule 270, sub-section 7-if he persisted in wilfully mismanaging his work, I consider he would then be guilty of an act of insubordination and that he would be liable to be whipped under Rule 274. I mention that as an instance.
Q--But as there are specific instances of repetition mentioned in Rule 274, if Rule 274 had been intended to include repetitions of other offences, is not the inference that these other offences would have been mentioned in Rule 274 ?
A-I do not read the Rule in that way; it distinctly says "Any act."
Q-In the same way, you do not think the punishment assigned in Rule 272 for persistent and aggravated refusal to labour excludes flogging under Rule 274 for persistent refusal to labour?
A-No.
Q--How have you interpreted the words "acts of insubordination requiring to be suppressed by extraordinary means" occurring in Rule 274?
A-Repeated disobedience of the Regulations, notably refusal to labour, personal violence to an officer of the Prison, and repeated assaults on a fellow-prisoner.
Q--These are included above?
A—Yes, and wilfully destroying Gaol property.
Q-Under Rule 274 there are four classes of offences dealt with first of all, but I will not refer to these. I want to know what you have been in the habit of considering came within the phrase--" Any act of insubordination requiring to be suppressed by extraordinary means."
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.