equated that of Mr. Grey and who was not
due for release (with full remission) until
1971.
6.
Strictly speaking, the Board was not entitled under Rule 69A to review the case
of
since the latter was serving
only a five year sentence. However the
Governor gave administrative instructions
to the Board that it should review the sentences
of all prisoners serving sentences of four
years or more. This ploy was successful;
was
a number of confrontation prisoners were
released and in particular
released last October. This was quickly
followed by the release of Mr. Grey.
7. Having completed their review of the
sentences of all confrontation prisoners
serving more than four years, the Board
has no power to undertake any further review
of any sentences for another two years,
unless the Governor onee again instructs
i
them to do so. Having bent the rules once in order to be coperative, I see no reason
why we should expect the Governor to do
so again. The ploy to secure
release (and the release of a number of
other confrontation prisoners) stretched
credibility to the limit. Last June the
"China Mail" in Hong Kong gave front page
headlines to a letter from 80 prisoners &
accusing the Board of Review of being particularly
partial towards left wing prisoners; the
following month the unofficial members of
the Board became upset at the extent of
the criticism being levelled at them in
private conversation by many who did not
approve of any leniency towards this category
of prisoner.