86 )
-Now turn to Rule 277. What, in your opinion, is the object of that rule which says: "The following offences committed by male prisoners will render them liable to corporal punishment"?
A--It specifies the offences for which whipping may be administered.
Q-Do you take it that it specifies the offences for which whipping may be ad- ministered by the Superintendent alone or by the Superintendent in conjunction with a Justice of the Peace?
A-I think, generally taken, it means in conjunction with a Justice of the Peace.
Q-Now the first section of Rule 277 is a repetition of Rule 274 with the exception that the words "any act of insubordination, &c." are left out, and that the repetition of insulting language is put in. Rule 274 only refers to repetition of threatening language. The second section relates to the wilful breaking or destruction of Prison property, and the third section relates to disturbance under punishment, and any act of gross misconduct or insubordination requiring to be suppressed by extraor- dinary means?
A-Yes.
Q--This Rule really creates three classes of offences for which corporal punishment may be inflicted:-repeated insulting language, wilful breaking of Prison property, and disturbance under punishment?
A--Yes.
Q-
-And corporal punishment may be inflicted for an offence under section 2 of Rule 277?
A-By thirty-six strokes.
Q-That is in conjunction with a Justice of the Peace?
A--Yes.
Q-But here I am in a difficulty.
difficulty. If you put that interpretation upon it, does it not seem to you that that contradicts the latter part of Rule 275 which says: “in the case of a male prisoner an offence under the preceding rule may be punished by personal correction, not exceeding thirty-six strokes if an adult, nor twelve if a juvenile?" You have it laid down in Rule 275 that in cases of male prisoners guilty of offences under Rule 274 the Superintendent may in conjunction with a Justice of the Peace punish with strokes not exceeding thirty-six, &c. Now in the second part of Rule 277 you seem to have additional offences. Do you think that the Rule really relates to punishment by a Justice of the Peace.?
A-I think the Superintendent would be justified in inflicting a whipping for the offence.
Q-Do you think that you can call in a Justice of the Peace to assist you?
A-I do. For any offence that I could not deal with I think I should be quite justified in calling in a Justice of the Peace to assist me.
Q-The question is, would these Rules allow you to call in a Justice of the Peace for the purpose of inflicting thirty-six strokes upon a man who had wilfully and maliciously broken Prison windows, after reading the latter part of Rule 275 ?
A-I take it that was the intention-most distinctly the intention.
Q--And you do not think that the view that fresh offences created by Rule 277 may be punished by flogging in conjunction with a Justice of the Peace-you do not think that view would be precluded by the latter part of Rule 275?
A-It is not intended it should be precluded.
Page 840Page 841
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.