Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 27 February 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.


Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

The fact that it was the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy does not affect the argument, in my respectful submission. It was one of the most fundamental decisions that could ever be made in our criminal system. It was a decision whereby all the circumstances of the case had to be brought into account, and if ever there was a decision that should have been made by the judiciary, rather than by the Administration, that was it. The fact that the royal prerogative was involved does not change the situation. For example, the old law—and, indeed, the current law—of wardship vests in a judge of the High Court powers which have been delegated by Her Majesty the Queen as parens patriae—the parent of the nation. The fact that it is an exercise of the royal prerogative does not mean to say that a judge is not entitled to act in that capacity.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c668 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Criminal proceedings Appeals Armed forces Crimes of violence Age Alternatives to prison HIV/AIDS Discrimination Offenders Parole Prisoners Life imprisonment Police cautions Prisoners' release Rehabilitation Sentencing Young people Sexual offences Young offenders Reoffenders
Legislation
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk