The prerogative of mercy. The Home Secretary (on behalf of the Crown) may pardon offences of a public nature prosecuted by the Crown. This particular prerogative has been held by the courts to be non-justiciable in the past. However, new cases cast doubt on this view. In Hanratty v Lord Butler of Saffron Walden (1971) 115 SJ 386, the Court of Appeal held that the courts had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not the Home Secretary had been negligent in the exercise of this prerogative. In [ case ], Lord Diplock stated in the Privy Council (at 247): 'Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end'. The decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349 has modified the position, however.
Answer
De Freitas v Benny [1976] AC 239
Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
The prerogative of mercy. The Home Secretary (on behalf of the Crown) may pardon offences of a public nature prosecuted by the Crown. This particular prerogative has been held by the courts to be non-justiciable in the past. However, new cases cast doubt on this view. In Hanratty v Lord Butler of Saffron Walden (1971) 115 SJ 386, the Court of Appeal held that the courts had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not the Home Secretary had been negligent in the exercise of this prerogative. In [ case ], Lord Diplock stated in the Privy Council (at 247): 'Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end'. The decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349 has modified the position, however.
Answer
?
Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
The prerogative of mercy. The Home Secretary (on behalf of the Crown) may pardon offences of a public nature prosecuted by the Crown. This particular prerogative has been held by the courts to be non-justiciable in the past. However, new cases cast doubt on this view. In Hanratty v Lord Butler of Saffron Walden (1971) 115 SJ 386, the Court of Appeal held that the courts had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not the Home Secretary had been negligent in the exercise of this prerogative. In [ case ], Lord Diplock stated in the Privy Council (at 247): 'Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end'. The decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349 has modified the position, however.
Answer
De Freitas v Benny [1976] AC 239
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it this view. In Hanratty v Lord Butler of Saffron Walden (1971) 115 SJ 386, the Court of Appeal held that the courts had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not the Home Secretary had been negligent in the exercise of this prerogative. In <span>De Freitas v Benny [1976] AC 239, Lord Diplock stated in the Privy Council (at 247): 'Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end'. The decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home D
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.