|
Summary,
Conclusions and Recommendations
(a) Summary
of Opinion
Question
1 - Do the Contents of the Second Petition Require the Enlargement of the
Existing Reference?
Answer - Yes.
The two petitions taken together raise a
considerable number of issues sufficiently to point to a need for further
consideration. Only some of those issues are included in the present
reference. Substantial enlargement will be necessary if all are to be
determined in a single reference. Part 4 of the opinion
discusses the extent and nature of the amendments which would be needed for
that purpose.
Question 2 -
Should the Grant of a Pardon be Considered while the Petitioner's Case is
Before the Court of Appeal?
Answer - No.
The role of the pardon in the criminal justice system is as a unique constitutional
safeguard against the failure of that system. As such it should only precede
the exercise of other available remedies for clear and cogent reasons.
Particularly cogent reasons would be needed to justify pre-empting the
decision of the Court of Appeal after a petitioner's convictions have been
referred to it for its re-consideration. The information presently supplied
does not justify that action: see Parts 3.3 and 3.4 of
the opinion.
Question 3 -
"The Application for a Free Pardon Itself'
I take this reference to amount to an invitation to comment on the merits
of the
application for a pardon. Particularly having regard to my answer to Question
2, I do not believe it would be appropriate to express any firm view at this
time. Further, while the material forwarded raises concerns, in most areas it
goes no further The ''Conclusions and Recommendations" which follow
discuss alternative methods of advancing the evidentiary base for what seem
to me to be the central issues That development would at the same time
provide a much better basis for assessing the merits of the application for a
pardon than is available now.
|
