If a Governor comes to the conclusion that any proceedings taken accused persons either in the Colony or by way of petition here are without real substance he will not allow these proceedings to cause the postponement of sentence. I have considered whether any further steps, whether by amendment of the law or otherwise, should be taken to avoid delays, but as procedure by way of petition to the Privy Council depends. on the right of the subject to petition the King and the prerogative right to admit these petitions, any legislation on the subject would be Inadvisable. Moreover, the rules and practice I have indicated should be quite sufficient to prevent any repetition of the happenings in the Gold Coast case. I may add that this procedure corresponds to that which has been in force regarding appeals from India for some years, "and has been found satisfactory.
I turn now to the prerogative of mercy. As I explained in my statement of 5th March, His Majesty by Letters Patent or Order in Council expressly delegates his prerogative of mercy in criminal cases to Colonial Governors, and this includes both the power to pardon an offender either absolutely or conditionally and the lesser power to respite (1.e., postpone) sentence, Further, the Royal Instructions give a Governor the most precise instructions as to the exercise of the power of pardon in capital cases; he must call for a written report from the Trial Judge; he must consider the case in Executive Council, to which he may summon the Judge, and may require him to produce his notes of the trial; but it is the Governor himself who is to decide whether a pardon or reprieve is or is not to be granted. These provisions are common form in Colonial constitutions. It is absolutely clear, therefore, that the effect of these instruments is to give power of pardon to the Governor. In the Gold Coast case the Governor in fact commuted the sentences on two of the prisoners at an early stage, and at the last he commuted the sentences on two others for reasons which he explained in a statement made to the Legislative Council on 28th March, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House.
I come now to the position of the Secretary of State. I am advised, as I previously informed the House, that the delegation by His Majesty to Colonial Governors of the power of pardon does not entirely empty the King of his own prerogative of mercy. That is, I understand, the legal position. If a petition is presented to His Majesty praying for mercy, it is my duty to advise him what, if any, action should be taken upon 12,
The normal practice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. is not himself to intervene in an individual case and not to advise His Majesty to intervene, There would be most unfortunate results if the Secretary of State followed any other course. First, it would be necessary for him to consider fully the facts of each case and all the considerations which bore upon it. That is a matter of great difficulty in London remote from the scene of the crime. It is unlikely that, if LL were once understood that the Secretary of State is ready to intervene, numerous petitions would be sent to him or to His Majesty, and their consideration by him would be physically impossible. In capital cases, their mere consideration would cause just that delay which it is necessary to avoid.
But further, and more important, for the Secretary of State to intervene would conflict with the plain intention of the constitutional instruments I have referred to, which set up a better machinery for
!
f
1
--
#1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.