Page:Aboriginal welfare 1937.djvu/31

 Mr. BLEAKLEY.—Two years ago, the Queensland Government decided against the establishment of a special court for natives. It, however, agreed that in cases in which natives were charged with offences—whether between natives or against whites—no aboriginal person shall be allowed to plead guilty unless, before such plea is made, the Chief Protector certifies that the charge is understood by the accused, that he understands his rights of trial, and that the Chief Protector himself believes that a plea of guilty is reasonable in the circumstances. In nearly every instance the court has decided not to allow a native to plead guilty. Provision is also made for the proper legal defence of native prisoners and for a Protector to address the court on behalf of the prisoner. In Queensland we have provision for a native court, elected by the inmates, to deal with minor offences between natives on a reserve. Serious offences, too involved for a native court, are heard before a Protector or a visiting justice.

Mr. NEVILLE.—A special court for natives should deal only with offences between natives. Where white men are concerned, the trial should be in the ordinary courts of the State. Where a native is charged with an offence against a white person, the act of Western Australia provides that be may be represented by counsel, and have the protection of the Chief Protector. In my opinion, not only tribal offences, but all offences between natives, including charges of murder, should be heard before a native court, such court to consist of a special magistrate appointed by the Crown and a nominee of the Chief Protector. It should be given practically a free hand. Difficulty was experienced in obtaining convictions by juries of white men charged with assaulting natives. Invariably, the white man was acquitted, and consequently juries have been abolished in such cases. In Western Australia, all such cases are now heard by a magistrate; they are not dealt with by Justices. Tribal practice is accepted as evidence in a native court.

BLEAKLEY.—I agree that offences between natives, and whites should be heard in the ordinary courts of the land, so long as proper defence is provided for the native.

Mr. McLEAN.—We must provide for cases in which the Protector is a police officer and may also be the prosecutor.

Mr. NEVILLE.—In such cases a special protector should be appointed.

Resolved—

CHAINING OF ABORIGINES.

Mr. CARRODUS.—Previously, it was the custom in the Northern Territory to chain prisoners by the neck when being brought for trial, but a change of Government substituted handcuffs for chains. The police objected, on the ground that chains around the neck allow prisoners much greater freedom of movement and cause less discomfort than handcuffs. Recently, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) witnessed a demonstration of the two methods, and was convinced that the chaining of prisoners around the neck is a much more humane practice than handcuffing. As the Commonwealth has been severely criticised for chaining natives, I should like to hear the opinion of delegates.

Mr. BLEAKLEY.—We have been criticized on this score also in Queensland. We have left the matter to the discretion of the Police Department. The safety of the escort depends upon the security of the means of restraint placed upon the prisoners. When natives have to travel long distances the rule is, wherever possible,to provide means of transport to obviate walking.

Professor CLELAND.—I think the Conference could safely go so far as to say that when the use of chains is necessary the neck chain is preferable to the handcuff for humane reasons, but all instances of the use of chains should be reported.

Mr. CARRODUS.—That would be done in the general way. The use of chains in confined to the remote areas from which prisoners have to be brought.

Mr. CHAPMAN.—Is the chain used on witnesses as well as prisoners who have to be brought long distances from the bush?

Dr. COOK.—Sometimes it has been.

Mr. NEVILLE.—This has been an issue in Western Australia for 50 years or more and it has been decided that the use of light neck chains is more humane than handcuffs when bringing prisoners from long distances in the bush. The practice is not adopted unless it is necessary, but when prisoners and even witnesses, have to be brought from the bush the use of light neck chains of 6 oz. a foot is adopted. There have been a few unfortunate instances, of course, but action has been taken against those responsible. We must take care of the safety of an officer who may have to go out 300 miles to bring in several natives. This matter was referred to in the report of the royal commission appointed in 1934 to investigate, report and advise upon matters in relation to the condition and treatment of aborigines. The Commissioner reported as follows:—

Chains may be used where they are necessary. In the gaols an ankle chain is used, but when natives travel from the bush the neck chain is preferable. This is the testimony of all the people who have had anything to do in a direct way with the natives.

Mr. BAILEY.—Unfortunately the chaining is not always done in a humane way.