Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

1398 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI complaints from without the Colony ; nor could the recom- mendation of a Colonial Ministry in favour of such a course be of itself a sufficient justification of it. 6. I am glad to understand that the New South Wales Government is willing to take steps for repealing the fourth section of 11 Vict. e. 84.1 In 1877 an absurd dispute arose in Tasmania between the Government and the judges with regard to the case of a pardon granted by the Governor on the advice of ministers to Louisa Hunt? The Government’s action in advising this pardon was disapproved of by both Houses of Parlia- ment, and the judges were annoyed because they thought that the Ministry and the Governor assumed to act as a Court of Appeal from the Supreme Court. The matter was referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who in a dispatch of October 29, 1877, laid it down very clearly that in no manner was the exercise of the prerogative a matter of appeal from the decision of a Court. The Governor did not technically reverse a sentence nor pronounce it wrong. While not questioning either the verdict or the sentence, still he thought fit by virtue of the prerogative to extend mercy to a convict. Moreover, he disagreed with the suggestion of the Governor that in every case the judges ought to make a minute when they had passed sentence apparently for the use of the Governor in Council. That would tend to confirm the contention that the Governor and Council were a Court of Appeal from the sentence of the Court. A Governor, he added. must keep steadily in view that the act of pardon of a sentenced criminal was an act of pure clemency, and not in any way judicial. Except in capital cases, as to which the royal instructions laid down a distinct course of procedure, the Governor, in order to inform his mind where clemency ought to be extended in any case, will do well to consult informally those who can best assist him. Amongst these he will naturally in most cases have recourse in the first instance to the judges, and particularly to the judge who tried ' See Act No. 17 of 1883. Victoria had a similar statute, No. 233. * Tasmania Legislative Council Papers, 1878, No. 36; 1878-9, Nos. 117, 118.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation