Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7168x10240 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
The Legislative Assembly met at 430
njn. yesterday.
QUESTIONS.
The Minister for Works (Mr. McCal-
lum told .the Leader of the Country
Party (Mr. Thomson) that it was a fact
that the books of some road boards had
not been audited for two or three years,
but the Act did not provide for Govern
ment audits each year. Two additional
auditors had been temporarily appointed
to overtake arrears of work. ?
Railway Report.
The: Premier (Mr. Collier) 'informed
Mr. Johnston (C.P. Williams-Narrogin)
that a report had not yet been received
from the special committee appointed to
inquire info the route of the Lake Grace
East Jilakin-Karigarin railway.
Traffic Fees.
Replying to a motion by Mr. North
(U.P., Claremont) that a return be titled
showing .Che metropolitan traffic fees col
lected, the administrative costs and the
amounts paid to the various local bodies
during, the, periods 1924-5, 1925-6 and
1926-7. the Minister for Works said that
which he was not opposed to the motion,
it merely called for information which,
during, his administration, had always
beeii freely, supplied when asked for by
any. local body. There had been .no
secrecy as to how the funds bad been
divided.
The motion was agreed to.
BILLS DISCHARGED.
On the motion of Mr. Sleeman (Lab.
Fremantle)the Fire Brigades Act
Amendment Bill and tbe Fremantle
Municipal Tramways and Electric Light
ing Act Amendment Bill, both of which
had reached the stage of the second read
ing debate were discharged from the
notice paper.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
The second reading debate on. the
Criminal Code Amendment Bill was re
sumed by Mr. Johnson (Lab., Guildford)
who said he hoped that the Bill would
pass. It was a reform measure which
would have (the effect of limiting capital
punishment. The Bill would gradually
educate the public mind, and when the
time came for abolition, if would be car
ried out by the will, and with the fa
vour of . the people. There was a dif
ference between natural mental infirmity
and mental disease, and the Bill would
be an extension of the criminal code to
provide for this. The public and the
Labour, mind had still to be educated
fully against capital punishment, which
was not a deterrent to crime. Crimes had
reduced in number in countries where
capital punishment had ceased.
Mr. Lindsay (CJP. Toodyay): Does not
the decrease in crime apply to every
country, whether capital punishment is
in existence or not?
Mx. Johnson said that he had not
studied the question from that point of
view. Murderers should be punished, and
possibly men imprisoned for life, would
suffer more than, if they were hanged
at the time of conviction.
Mr. Davy (U.P., West Perth): Why
commit them to penal servitude if it is
a worse punishment?
Mr. Johnson said that he was support
ed by the best authorities in the world
when he maintained that no legal right
existed to say that a man's life should
be taken.
Mr. Corboy (Lab., Yilgarn), supported
the Bill. He thought that- a decision
should be- made on tbe question of capi
tal punishment, and regretted that the
Bill did not attempt suppression of the
death penalty. If capital punishment
were really a deterrent, . if would be
logical to exhibit the remains of hanged
persons. : .Capital punishment was no
deterrent, criminals were deterred by the
certainty of detection, irrespective of the
punishment. prime had been on. the
wane, commencing from the time capital
punishment had been abolished for minor
offences. Thirty years ago a hanging
sentence could be imposed in Western
Australia for seven crimes. Five of
those crimes had been freed from the
capital punishment. Gut there had not
been any increase in their commission
Mr. Mann in Reply.
Mr. Mann (U.P.. Perth), in reply
said that there had been no real opposi
tion to the Bill. As expected, Mr. Davy
had criticised it from the. viewpoint of
his profession. He had raised issues
not contemplated in the Bill and then
knocked them down. Mr. ? Mann de
fended the .authorities, including Ameri
can authorities, that he had quoted in in
troducing the Bill. which Mr. Davy, he
said, had maintained should be discarded,
and the question decided, on comnon
sense, Mr. Davy was inconsistent in
that be later suggested a Royal Commis
sion, which meant that he. would have
to call in authorities to give evidence.
The Premier: Local authorities
Cithers, said Mr. Mann. had declared
that, they would have supported the Bill
had it provided for the abolition of capi
tal punishment. He would have intro
duced such a Bill had he thought it
would have succeeded, but he did not be
lieve that the public mind was yet
educated up to. that 'point. The object
of the Bill was to ? ensure 'that where -a
man was fotind guilty of murder, and it
was proved that his mind was still that
of a child, he should not be hanged.
Mr. Davy: 'The weak point of the Bill
is that it has not to be proved.
Mr. Mann said he did not want to have
anything in the Bill that would preju
dice the trial of a prisoner by clouding
the issue whether he was guilty or not
guilty, with whether he was mentally de
ficient or not. In drafting a Bill such
as this, it was difficult to foresee all the
problems .that might arise, though he
had had frequent conferences with the
Government draftsman to anticipate diffi
culties. If the Bill reached the Com
mittee stage, as he hoped it would, he
was prepared to amend it to provide that
when an accused was found guilty of
murder, the judge should refer the case
to the Coart of Criminal Appeal, which
would hear evidence as to whether he
was mentally deficient or not.
The Premier: That would separate the
issues.
Mr. Davy: It would be a vast improve
ment.
Mr. Mann said that in Committee he
would move an amendment, to provide
that when the question of insanity or
mental infirmity was involved the ques
tion should not be decided by a jury, but
should be referred by the trial judge to
a Court of Criminal Appeal.
The second reading was carried on the
voices.
Government members urged Mr. Mann
to hike the Bill into Committee im
mediately. Mr. Milan moved in this
direction, but on clause 2 asked that pro
gress be reported, as he was not pre
pared with his amendment.
Progress was reported.
Bills of Sale Act
In moving the second reading of a Bill
to amend the Bill of Sales Act. 1878
Mr. Davey said that its object was to
provide that the Act should not apply
to any agreement for the hire, with or
without the light of purchase, of any
electrical appliances, or apparatus of any
nature or kind, used wholly or in part
for household purposes The Bill was
introduced at the investigation of the
Chamber of Commerce.
The second reading was carried with
out debate, aull the Bill passed through
Committee.
Police Administration.
Resuming the debate on the second
reading of the Police Act Amendment
Bill, which provides for the establish
ment of a Police Appeal Board. Mr.
Richardson (U.P.. Subiaco). urged the
Minister for Police to go further than
was proposed by the Bill. Legislation
should aim as much as possible, he said,
to assist members of the police force in
maintaining their efficiency, and to en
sure the smooth running of the depart
ment. While the Minister bad stated
that Sergeants Lecn and Teahan were
kept waiting years for , promotion be
cause there were no vacancies, junior
officers had been promoted. A promo
tional board would enable any police
man with a grievance to appeal for jus
tice. The Police Department would
work more smoothly if the men had a
board, to appeal to. . A recommendation
had. been placed before the Minister by
the Commissioner for Police after at
tending an Eastern States conference in
1924.
The Minister for Police: I'll read his
latest recommendation.
Mr. Richardson said that the recom
mendation was to the affect that a board
should be appointed similar to that operat
ing in New South Wales, consisting of a
stipendiary magistrate and two police
officers representing the Commissioner,
and the men. A temporary board was
appointed. Of seven cases dealt with
by that board, five decisions were unani
mous, so it could not be said that it was
biased.
Mr. Mann, said that the board, as sug
gested, was not satisfactory. He did not
think that it would be capable of dealing
with promotions, and he was afraid that
a magistrate might be biased against
policemen with whom he was in constant
contact. He suggested a judge instead
of a magistrate. He would support the
proposed amendment but could not
agree that! such a board should deal with
promotions. He would support the
second reading, but would move in Com
mittee that a judge be appointed to the
board.
Mr. Kenneally (Lab., East Perth) said
that the board, if constituted, would be
an. adequate tribunal to deal with ap
peals against punishments as set out
in the Act, but there was another, form
of punishment which would not come
under the purview of the proposed
board; and that was denial of promo
tion to an officer who might be entitled
to it. There should be some board to
which a police officer could appeal if he
considered he had been unjustly denied
promotion, and in committee he would
support an amendment for such a board
though not necessarily a straight-out pro
motion board.
The Minister for Police, in reply, said
that an official of the Police Association
had told him that if the Bill passed in
the form it was introduced, they would
be completely satisfied.
The second reading was carried.
Promotion Appeals.
In Committee on clause 6, which pro- -
vides for an appeal board for non-com
missioned officers or constables against
pimishmeat for offences against disci
pline, Mr. Taylor moved an amendment
to include appeals against any decision
of the Commissioner in regard to the
granting or refusal of promotion. Mr.
Taylor said members of the force had
told him that, if carried, the amendment
would be the best part of the Bill.
The Minister tasked, for the ruling , of
the chairman as to whether the amend
ment was in order, as the Bill dealt only
with those sections of the Act relating
to offences against discipline, which had
nothing to do with promotion.
The Deputy-Chairman of Committees
(Mr. Angelo) ruled that the amendment
was in order, as, the Bill sought to icon
stitute an appeal board, and there was,
he said, close relationship between re
duction in rank and promotion.
The Minister, for Police declared that
one of the serious disadvantages of' a
promotional appeal board was that while
10 persons might give favourable evidence
concerninig. an appellant. 40 persons who
knew that, he would be an absolute
failure in the higher position would de-
liberately stop away rather than give
condemnatory evidence. With all due
respect, he wished to say that a magis
trate or Judge did not have the neces
sary experience to make a decision. Such,
experience was obtained only after years
of ascertaining how an officer acted in
many different circumstances that arose.
The fact that a policeman passed an ex-
amination did not mean that he would
make a successful sergeant.
Mr. Johnston (C.P., Williams-Narro
gin): You think that the Commissioner
of Police is always right.
The Minister for Police replied that
the Commissioner was not infallible. The
Commissioner was not afraid to express
his views, no matter what Government
was in office. A report of the Com
missioner on the temporary promotional
appeal board, appointed two years ago,
stated that the result was most dis
appointing from the standpoint of effi
ciency. The chairman (Mr..Kidson, P.M.)
had not taken, into consideration the per
sonality of appellants who appeared. be-
fore him, and made a decision only on
the evidence that came before him. The
Commissioner's report also said that,
although one man;- had not passedt his
promotional examination, and probably
never would, he had. been promoted by
the board. The result of this might be
that others would appeal In similar cir
cumstances, and the examinations would
become futile. The continuation of the
board was treading on dangerous ground
and might in time destroy efficiency. The
present system had worked well, and be
was loth to do away with it, particular-
ly as the force in other States; under
the suggested system, was not so effi
cient. He was not prepared to accept
the amendment.
Mr. Tay!or said that the Police As
sociation desired the amendment. The
Commissioner, after being conviuiced of
the necessity for the board, had changed
his mind after experience of temporary
board. It was obvious that he had
changed his mind merely because the
board had. not always agreed with him.
Ministry in Minority.
On a division, the amendment was
carried by 2i) votes to 9, , The House
divided as follows: —
Ayes:. Messrs. Taylor (U.P.), Richard
soa (H.P.), Maley (U.'P.). Sacnpson
(U.P.). Manm (UjP.). Davy (U'.P:),
Xortli U.P.). Barnard (U-P.), Johnston
(C'P.). Lindsay (C.P.). Chesson (Lab.).
Kenneally (Lab.). Sleeman (Lab.). Lu
tey (Ijdb.). Marshall (Lab.), Coverley.
(Lab.). Kennedy -(Lab.), . wansbrough
(Lab.), Heron* ('Lab.) and Miss Holman
(Lab.), . -.
Noes: Messrs. Collier (Lab.). Willcock
(Lab.). Troy (Lab.). McCallum (T^ab.).
Cunningham (Lab.). Millington. (-Lab.).
Wilson (Jjab.). Lamond (J-ab.). and
Clydesdale (Lab.):
As members resumed their, seats, the
Premier, who hatl called for the divi-
sion. exclaimed: That is the end of
your promotions board."
Progress was reported.
ADJOURNMENT.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned
until 4.30 p.m.-. to-day.
$