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

cHAP. Iv] THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY 1413 difficulty was occasioned to the Ministry in dealing with an instance of the exercise of the prerogative in a capital case. The Government had had no experience in dealing with the matter since the issue of the new instructions. They, there- fore, while receiving a report from the judge, omitted to ask him to attend to discuss the matter in Cabinet or to make any recommendation. It is usual in the other states for the Government to ask the Chief Justice to attend and to question him on legal points, though Chief Justices, as a rule, do not make recommendations.2 The Executive Council decided to recommend that the law should take its sourse, but the counsel for the accused elicited the fact that the judge was in favour of the commutation of the sentence, and in consequence a popular agitation was started which resulted in the judge being asked to attend a further Cabinet meeting, and in the Cabinet deciding to commute the sentence in accordance with his advice. Nevertheless, they were faced by an attack in the House of Assembly, which, however, was withdrawn when it appeared that the Government had acted with no intention of disregarding their duty and their position The case was important because the Governor thought it well to address a minute to ministers explaining that under the new instructions no personal responsibility rested in such a case with the Governor, that the mode of procedure had been left by the new instructions for the discretion of each Colonial Government, and that in New Zealand the presence of a judge was not considered by Mr. Ballance in 1892 to be necessary in the discussion of sentences, as the Executive Government there carried out the law.4 t See Hobart Mercury, October 20-2, 1908. * The practice, I believe, varies; the above statement represents the rule followed by the late Sir F. Darley, C.J. of New South Wales. * Dr. McCall appears to have raised the matter to make clear that a man’s fate must not be allowed to be decided without securing all available information. * In Canada in a capital case, since 1866 each judge is under a legal obligation to furnish a full report. For New Zealand see Parl, Pap., 1893, A. 1, p. 12; Constitution and Government of New Zealand, pp. 187, 210.

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