THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1866, 27 September 1913, Page 8

THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

SCOPE OF APPEAL. DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. ■In interesting discussion arose in the House oi' Representatives yesterday upon tlio report of the A to L Petitions Committee oil the petition of G. Sutton and fourteen others (of Wellington) praying that the sentence (three months' imprisonment) imposed oil George D. Hewitt for use of obscene language be alleviated. The committee recommended that the petition be referred to the Government for immediate and favourable consideration. Nearly every member who spoke did so from a distinct point of view. Mr. 1!. M'Callum said that the decision of the magistrate must be upheld, but appealed to the House 011 what lie described as "the usual sentimental grounds." He said that the convicted man had a wife and two children, who would suffer by reason of his detention, and, further, that the mail's business would suffer. Mr. L. M. Isitt contended that the sentence was excessive. Mr. C. K. 'Wilson also held that it was too severe, but Mr. H. Atmore maintained that the sentence was just, aiid should he upheld. Mr. G. W. Russell contended that Parliament, the High Court of the land, should not be asked to waste its time and the time of the public, in dealing with trivial cases of this kind. Where was the matter to end? Was any person guilty of a criminal offence to have the right, to petition Parliament for a remission of sentence? In his opinion it ought to ho laid down that 110 such petition should be. considered by a committee of the House. Mr. Herries: Everyone has a right to petition the House. Mr. Russell said that lie was not so sure of that. It was a question whether the right of petitioning should not be confined to those who were ablo to prove that in tlio ordinary courts of tlio land they were unable t-o obtain justice. If petitions like the 0110 before tlio House, were to be received Parliament would, be reduced to the level of a Court of Appeal not in regard to offences at all, but with regard to the judgmcVits of magistrates. Mr. T. M. Wilford said that tlio important question had been raised of whether the Crown had the right to interfere with the Judiciary. He did not think it was for the Houso to say whether sentence was too bard, but the .Minister of Justice might reasonably advise the man's relatives to apply for a rehearing. Mr. Herdman: Too late now. Mr. Wilford said that any suggestion to review the decision should come from tbc magistrate and not from the Minister. He believed that the sentence was harsh, but the langungo used was filthy. Dr. A. K. Newman said that Hewitt was told by the police that if he pleaded guilty he would probably get off lightly. Ho' therefore employed, 110 lawyer and entered no defence, and was amazed and bewildered at the severity of the sentence imposed. The man might .very well now bo released for the penalty that had been imposed was altogether too severe. Mr. G. Laurcnson supported what Dr. Newman had said. 'Hie sentence was a tremendous one. Ho dissented from the objections offered by Mr. Russell to Parliament spending time upon a trivia) case of this nature. Personally 110 would strongly object to any interference with the right to potition Parliament. Mr. E. P. Lee said that if the Houso was going to consider tlio remission of sentences 'it would bo treading on • very dangerous grounds indeed. It would ipeau that the House would become an instrument for the retrial of criminal cases. An appeal would bo made to the House in every capital case. Some members voted against the mo. t-ion that the report bo laid upon the table, but it was carried 011 the voices.