DISTASTEFUL DUTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22609, 28 June 1935, Page 11

DISTASTEFUL DUTY

HOME SECRETARY'S TASK Recent events in Britain associated vith the imposition of the death sentence and the steps that subsequently follow in connection with it before the sentence is carried out have strengthened the hands of those who for a long time have advocated a change in the system under which the final decision as to whether a murderer is to die or not is left to one man — the Home Secretary. Officials are hopeful that the alternative process for which they press will ultimately be adopted. They contend that, apart altogether from other considerations, the responsibility is too much for any Minister alone. Before coming to a decision the Home Secretary—who every morning at the Home Office is reminded of his duty by a grim card upon his table —consults and very often sees the trial judge, and takes counsel with an expert committee in his department. Where necessary he obtains the opinion of a gaol governor and medical officer, and frequently asks for the advice of some distinguished judges of vast experience who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal. But it is the Home Secretary alone who advises the King as to whether there is to be a reprieve or r.ot. A former Home Secretary once frankly told the House of Commons that " this is the most terrible part of my job." It is en record that a famous Prime Minister said that he was restricted in his choice of a Home Secretary by reason of "certain distasteful duties relating to sentences "for murder that he frequently has to_ discharge. Distinguished men who otherwise would fill the office with honour and credit cannot be prevailed upon to accept the office on that account." The proposal' now under consideration is that the responsibility should be shared by a group of Ministers of whom one would have to be the Home Secretary, as he is the only appropriate Minister, according to constitutional practice, to advise the King on such matters. His advice in this regard, however, while being rendered to the Sovereign by him, would, in fact, be the combined views of his colleagues and himself. Such a scheme would, it is argued, relieve the Home Secretary of the uncontrolled and personal responsibility, prevent him from being held up to execration, and save the theatrical appeals that have the effect of harrowing public feeling.