The fact that long fixed sentences are "reviewed" in this way does not, however, constitute any radical departure from the normal constitutional practice in regard to interference by use of the Prerogative. In general it is not the practice to use the Prerogative to interfere with the sentence of a court unless fresh circumstances have come to light which were not before the court, and this applies to long sentences as much as to short. The longer the sentence, however, the greater the possibility of circumstances arising which might justify interference, and the long-term "review" is designed to bring to light the occasional case where the circumstances which led the court to impose a severe sentence may since have materially altered.
It is rare for the "review" of a long sentence to result in any special remission and I cannot quote specific examples. The following, however, are examples of circumstances in which interference with a long fixed sentence might be found to be justified:-
(a) Where, because of local or contemporary circumstances, an exemplary sentence was passed and the example of that sentence has since served its purpose.
the
(b) Where, because of the prisoner's mental condition, court thought it necessary to impose a long sentence for the protection of the public, and his mental condition has
/subsequently
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.