Pardon
A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction.
[1][2] Pardons can be viewed as a tool to overcome miscarriage of justice, allowing a grant of freedom to someone who is believed to be wrongly convicted or subjected to an excessive penalty.
[13][14] The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) is the federal agency responsible for making pardon decisions under the Criminal Records Act (CRA).
A pardon removes disqualifications caused by a criminal conviction, such as the ability to contract with the federal government, or eligibility for Canadian citizenship.
[26] The 1954 Constitution of China made provision for amnesties and pardons, both of which were to be powers of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
[28] Pardons and acts of clemency (grâces) are granted by the president of France, who, ultimately, is the sole judge of the propriety of the measure.
Prior to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, the power of pardon was the royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom.
"The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions ... to pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties".
Nonetheless, the SC in the Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of the president and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness.
The court made these observation while quashing the decision of then Governor of Andhra Pradesh Sushil Kumar Shinde in commuting the sentence of a convicted Congress activist.
In Italy, the president of the republic may "grant pardons, or commute punishments" according to article 87 of the Italian Constitution.
Requests for pardon are required to go through an examination process by a commission comprising the minister of justice and representatives of the supreme court prior to approval by the king.
[37] The right to pardon was traditionally recognized as a common practice among the sultans of the Alawi dynasty, and were only codified into the constitution by Hassan II (r. 1961–1999).
[38][39] On one occasion, a pardon which was granted by Mohammed VI to Daniel Galván, a Spanish convicted child rapist, was revoked following public outrage.
[41] Whether the president may grant relief prior to (final) conviction remains controversial, as the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal have opposing views.
This is the exclusive and discretionary competence of the president and is not subject to any conditions beyond the prior hearing of the Government, generally represented by the minister of justice.
Requests or proposals for pardons are instructed by the Criminal Execution Court by referral from the Ministry of Justice and subsequently submitted to the president for consideration.
[46][full citation needed] The pardon, as an individual, shall not be confused with amnesty or generic forgiveness, both of a general and abstract nature.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, the group's founder, offered thousands of inmates clemency in exchange for fighting in the most dangerous theaters of the war.
Spanish law defines it as a renunciation on the state's part of its own punitive power on behalf of an individual, founded on reasons of equity or public interest.
Pardons are not commonly conceded in Spain but for offenders convicted for minor crimes who are about to complete their sentence and have shown good behaviour and repentance.
Since the creation of legal rights of appeal, the royal prerogative of mercy is no longer exercised by the person of the sovereign, or by the judiciary, but only by the government.
In constitutional terms, under the doctrine of the rule of law, the power of ministers to overrule the judiciary by commuting criminal sanctions imposed resolves different and sometimes conflicting public interests.
Especially for assizes that were far away from the then capital and major cities of London, York, Durham, Edinburgh, or Dublin, a pardon might well arrive too late.
Perhaps as a form of temporary punishment, to give solace, to avoid public disorder, to consult or obtain further evidence, or to maximise the public approval of the King's mercy, judges often did not grant their pardons until their departures; the convict often hoped until his last moments that the sentence of death would not actually be executed, and it was generally popular for a reprieve to arrive at the scaffold at the very moment of the execution.
It is the standard policy of the government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally" innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by a misapplication of the law.
[citation needed] Therefore, the grant of pardons is now very rare occurrence indeed, and the vast majority of acknowledged miscarriages of justice were decided upon by the courts.
During the Birmingham Six case, Home Secretary Douglas Hurd stressed that he could only make the decision for a pardon if he was "convinced of [their] innocence", which at the time he was not.
They were pardoned in July 1996 from their sentences of imprisonment both of 18 years, having served some ten months, on the advice of Home Secretary Michael Howard.
In 1980, after the courts had dismissed their appeals, the Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, used the royal prerogative of mercy to free David Cooper and Michael McMahon from their imprisonment, both having been convicted of murder on poor evidence.
