The Timaru Herald.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2294, 27 January 1882, Page 2

The Timaru Herald.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1882. There seems to bo but ouu opinion cDuceruing the result of the trial i>f Mr Phnrazyu for personation, if we are to judge from the various comments of the newspapers on the subject. It i 6 agreed on all sides that the conviction, whether legally unavoidable or not, was an outrage upon common sense, and grossly unjust m its consequences. Opinions differ widely, however, as to whether any steps cau or should now be applied to remedy this injustice, or whether the law should be so amended as to prevent the occurrence of similar cases m future. The Lyitdton Times, we observe, m a very sensible article on the subject m Monday's issue, takea the practical view that the first thingto be done is torelieveMrPharazyu from hi 3 present painful position as the victim of ill-considered legislation. This our contemporary thinks can and ought to be effected by the Governor granting Mr Pharazyn a free pardon for the offence of which he has been convicted. The LytleUon Times says : — "A free pardon will free him from every disability, for as Blackatone says, a free pardon makes a convict ' a new man.' The question is whether the Governor under the circumstances, can grant a free pardon. We think he can." We wish we could see the matter m the same light, for we regard the conviction of Mr Pharazyn as one of the clearest wrongs that ever was committed through the instrumentality of a Court of Justice. We are bound to state, however, that we fail to understand how the Governor's pardon could possibly operate so as to free Mr Pharazyn from all disabilities, and further, that we are extremely doubtful whether, even if it could do so, it ought, as a matter of public policy to be granted. Unquestionably, if Mr Pharazyn had been sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment, instead of a nominal term, the Governor's pardon would suffice to release him. But it is not a question of releasing him from any punishment inflicted on him by the sentence of a Court. What he is suffering from now is the consequential penalties prescribed by law as an addition to the punishment inflicted by the Bcntence of the Court. The Governor may undo what has been done by a Judge. But, if our view ia correct, he cannot undo what has been done by Parliament. The law is that any one who has been convicted of personation shall be disfranchised for five years thereafter ensuing, and shall not be capable of holding or being elected to any public or judicial office during that period. His name is to be priuted and published m a separate appendix to the Electoral Roll, so that all the world may know of his disfranchisement ; and if he even attempts to take part m an election, whether a Parliamentary or a local election, he is liable to be fined a hundred pounds. Now these disabilities are quite outside of the sentence of the Court. They are not necessarily accompanied by any sentence ; for they follow upon an adverse report by au Election Court, just as they do upon a conviction by the Supreme Court. It surely is not contended that the Governor's pardon can be applied to remove the effects of a report by an Election Court. It might as well be applied to remove the effects of a decision by an Assessment Court or of any other civil tribunal. If, therefore, these disabilities are irrevocable as statutory penalties attaching to a report by an Election Court, they must also be irrevocable as statutory penalticE attaching to a conviction by the Supreme Court. In short, the Governor's pardou may obliterate any sentence that cau be intlicted by a Court of criminal jurisdiction, but it cannot intervene tc arrest the operation of the law iv othei respects. We offer these opinions not without considerable diffidence ; for we recognise that the question involved is a very difficult one, going to the root oi constitutional principles iv relation tc the scope of the prerogative of tin Crown. As to the question of whether assuming the Governor to have the power to grant a free pardon m thif case, he ought to do so or not, we are able to speak with greater confidence We say unhesitatingly that, as a mattei of public policy, he ought not. The Governor only grants free pardons ou the advice of his Ministers. It would m fact, be the Ministry who would make " a new man " of Mr Pharazyn ; and the Ministry are the leaders of the political party dominant for the time being. How " could they, therefore, interfere to remove the consequences oi a conviction for impersonation m his case, without establishing a precedent for a similar interference m every rase of conviction for impersonation ? It is true, the circumstances of his case arc peculiar, but every person, and the friends and political supporters of every person, convicted of impersonation, would naturally allege peculiarity of circumstuncea as a ground for a free pardon ; and would unquestionably be entitled to have that allegation considered. Thus the Ministry would find themselves compelled to assume judicial functions, and to try every case of conviction for impersonation over again, after it had been disposed of by a Court of Justice. This would be an intolerable position for any Ministry of high principle and good feeling, for it is impossible that they should escape the imputation of political bias. Au unscrupulous Ministry, on the other hand, with no character to lose, would make a fine use of such a precedent, and would advise the Governor to grant a free pardon m every instance where one of their friends got into troublo at an election. : The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act and the Election Petitions Act were

nissed expressly to remove all electoral lisputes from the compass of political nllueuce. So particularly was this ibject sought that it was provided thut ill electoral offences should be tvicd by he Supreme Court alone, the District ru.lges and Resident Magistrates being leld to be indirectly under political inluence inasmuch as they live removable )j Ministers. Yet the Lyttelton Times •ecoinuiends the adoption of a course which would entirely defeat that object jy bringing the ultimate issue of the jravest chißS of. electoral disputes immediately under the most concentrated form of political influence. Upon these considerations we hold that it would be m the last degree injudicious for the Governor—that is the Ministry—to interfere m Mr Phavazyu's case. If they do, they will find themselves adrift upon a sea of troubles. But we are confident that they have no intention of doing anything so foolish, and we aro strongly of opinion also that the law officers, if couaulted, will ndvise them that they have no power to do so.