Government Divided On Death Penalty Issue

Press, Volume C, Issue 29609, 4 September 1961, Page 12

Government Divided On Death Penalty Issue

(By Our Wellington Correspondent) «

WELLINGTON, September 3. Next Thursday Government members will have their first opportunity to accept or reject the four most contentious clauses in the Grimes Bill—those relating to the penalty for aggravated murder. There is a strong possibility that they will be rejected, in which case the Government must make up its mind either to proceed with the massive bill or to withhold it for yet another year.

The bill, which is now complete, consists of 412 clauses. In addition there

" are four clauses which define j the amendment put forward . by the deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) when the ; Government was in opposition last year. These clauses retain the ? death penalty for what is - termed “aggravated murder,” 1 which includes the infliction 3 of death as a result of pre- • meditation, in the course of f malicious wounding, and in ’other circumstances which ■-indicate a degree of planning. ; The death penalty would also ■ be retained for a second ’ offence of killing, and for j death inflicted in the course ; of the commission of another .crime. If the amendment is rejected, the bill will contain the present clause on capital ‘ punishment. Mr Marshall’s . amendment offers some , relief from the blanket i j “death sentence” provision, ijbut has raised its own diffi- ;! cutties. l| The legal advice is that I j there is much room for argu- > ment in matters of premedi--1 station, intention to inflict ■jinjury, and particularly, in “the commission of murder ’ during the course of com- ’ mitting another offence. A : high legal authority has com- , mented that this clause might 1 have to stand for a century ’ before a sufficient body of t Court decision became availj able to make it reasonably . clear. Since Mr Marshall put forward his amendment, a very strong body of opinion has indicated that it has no faith ; in the “degree” system of i assessing murder. Eminent

judicial authorities have examined the evidence, and have declared that the crime of murder cannot be divided into sections. Mr Marshall’s amendment was intended as a compromise—an attempt at a solution which would be favoured by a majority of members and of citizens outside the House of Representatives.

The reaction on the part of religious and other bodies 'has been strongly against the retention of capital punishment for any crime, no matter how heavily qualified.

The exact situation within the Government will not be known until the caucus makes a decision. It is assumed that the Opposition will be unanimous against the retention of capital punishment in any form; it is known, however, that at least four, possibly as many as 10, Government members have similar views.

Feelings are running so high on this issue that the Government is likely to grant its member a free vote when the bill comes before the House. This is why Thursday’s caucus meeting is of double importance. The Government's legal advisers say that the bill, which was first introduced in 1957, must pass, so that the consolidation of the 1906 Crimes Act can proceed and the teaching of law in New Zealand be given a firm basis. For many weeks the Cabinet Legislation Committee has been working on further amendments which could provide a solution acceptable to a Parliamentary majority. It is understood that of the 80 members in the House, no

more than 20 would accept the death penalty as it stands.

Several members known to be “hangers” have recently declared their doubts. If it came to a straight issuecapital punishment as against its abolition—the vote would be 55-25 in favour of abolition. This forecast takes note of the privately-expressed fears of a number of the younger, newer members. Mr Hanan's View One member who has expressed himself as against capital punishment in any form is the Minister of Justice (Mr Hanan), whose task it will be to introduce the Bill. His position may be likened to that of Mr Chuter Ede. Home Secretary in the United Kingdom Labour Government, when similar measures were before the House of Commons a few years ago, or that of Mr R. A. B. Butler, his Conservative successor. Both were strongly against capital punishment. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone in Parliament Buildings that if capital punishment became an issue in the House of Representatives. Mr Hanan would cross the floor and vote against it. The Cabinet is determined that this must not happen, and that a solution providing Government unanimity must be found. Other Provisions

The Crimes Bill deals with a number of other subjects, and implements several National Party election promises. One of these increases the maximum penalty for the conversion of motorvehicles, bringing it to the same category as theft. The number of clauses suggests an interesting possibility. If the Opposition decided to deny the bill a passage through the House, it could prolong the session well into 1962. In the committee stages alone, each member is entitled to speak for five minutes on each clause.

This possibility has been mentioned by Opposition members—but some of them admit that they have nothing against most of the bill.