Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Comments on sentences defended by Minister

The Attorney-General, Mr McLay, has responded to comments from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr G. W. R. Palmer, printed in “The Press” of August. 23. In a statement, Mr McLay said that Mr Palmer had tried to defend the view that politicians should not make general comments on court sentences.

“I do not intend to repeat the points made by ‘The Press’ itself in its reply. But it is clear that Mr . Palmer still does not understand the law,” said Mr McLay. “Under the Crimes Act and the Summary Proceedings Act the At-torney-General and all politicians are excluded from the decisions on Crown appeals against sentences. That was done deliberately when the law was changed to permit such appeals; so that there could be no possible suggestion that an * accused person was being politi-

cally victimised. “Mr Palmer’s suggestion that, in order’ to get increased rape sentences, I should ‘instruct’ the Solici-tor-General to argue such appeals is a clear breach of that law,” said Mr McLay. “There is no parallel with my appearance for the Crown in a case in Rotorua in 1979. That was a prosecution, at first instance, of three men who had bashed a , policeman. It was not an appeal,” he said. “The involvement of the Attor-ney-General in such a case is (as Mr Palmer concedes) completely proper; and if the opportunity arose I would do it again. But a Crown appeal against a sentence is completely different. My involvement in such an appeal would be illegal.” Mr McLay said that, in spite of Mr palmer’s persistent claims,

there was not and never had been a constitutional convention that Ministers could not comment on court decisions.

“Every recognised constitutional text makes it clear that such comments can be made — just as they can also be made by other judges, or by lawyers, academics and newspaper editors. All that is required is a measure of restraint as to the way in which such statements are made.”

Mr McLay said that Mr Palmer was allowing his convenient (and wrong) constitutional inventions to obscure the real issue — on which he still declined to comment.

“Does he favour increased penalties for rapists? That is the issue of public concern,” said Mr McLay. “Mr Palmer should state his view and not hide behind a claimed constitutional convention which has never, in

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19830824.2.73

Bibliographic details

Press, 24 August 1983, Page 12

Word Count
397

Comments on sentences defended by Minister Press, 24 August 1983, Page 12

Comments on sentences defended by Minister Press, 24 August 1983, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert