12
MR. PASKIN.
1.
This is an appeal to His Majesty to exercise that
prerogative of mercy of which His delegation of the power of
pardon to Governors does not entirely empty him. (Circular 13. 12th December, 1947, Enclosure 1, paragraph 9). The normal
practice is for the Secretary of State not to intervene in an
individual case and not to advise His Majesty to intervene.
In the present case, we have
2.
(a)
-
a copy of all the proceedings.
(b) the fact that the matter has been considered by the
Governor, who has refused to exercise his
prerogative so as to reduce the sentence.
(0)
the fact that the Secretary of State has stated
that he has received and considered the petition
and that as the prerogative of mercy has been
delegated to the Governor, the matter is not one
in which the Secretary of State would intervene.
It does not appear to me that any miscarriage of
justice has occurred, or that this case is so exceptional that
His Majesty should be advised to exercise his residual
prerogative.
3.
4.
If the matters were now referred to the Governor for
report, I can only conceive that he would reply (as it is clear
that he has in effect already replied to the petition, see
paragraph 14 of the petition under Red 1) that he is not
prepared to reduce the sentence, which he regards as fair and
just.
5.
In all these circumstances, I should be inclined to
think that to refer these matters to the Governor for a further
similar expression of that reply is, in the circumstances,
unnecessary.
6.
If, however, it is deemed desirable to refer the
matter to the Governor, then I suggest that it might be stated
that an appeal has been made to His Majesty for mercy, and that,
though the Secretary of State, as at present advised, is not
prepared to advise His Majesty to extend mercy, he would be
/obliged...
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.