THE MUNN PETITION

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1016, 5 July 1930, Page 1

THE MUNN PETITION

Constitutional Procedure CABINET’S ACTION DELAYED Reprieve or Retrial Sought THE fact that a petition has been presented to Parliament concerning Arthur Thomas Munn, who was convicted of the murder of his wife at Northcote. does not alter the constitutional aspect of the case. Cabinet’s action has merely been delayed by the petition, which will now be considered along with the constitution a. consideration of the case.

Cabinet’s action has merely been delayed by the petition, which will now be considered along with the constitutional consideration of the case. Cabinet will consider the petition and will no doubt be advised by _ the Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneral. The Supreme Court Judge who heard the trial, his Honour, Mr. .Justice Ilerdman, will probably be asked to assist Cabinet by a memorandum on the case as a whole. The reasons for this are that in addition to hearing the trial Mr. Justice Herdman was a lawyer of eminence and he has been a Minister of the Crown. . . The constitutional procedure is that when a man is convicted of murder he is automatically sentenced to death. That sentence is not proceeded with until the pleasure of his Excellency the Governor-General is known. The decision regarding the fulfilment of the sentence is reached at a meeting o. the Executive Council, which is always attended by the GovernorGeneraL In the ordinary course of events Cabinet would have already dealt

wish the ease but action has been delayed by tbe appeal which was presented to Parliament, asking for either a retrial or a reprieve. Cabinet will now consider the whole matter, as it would have done in the ordinary course of events, except tha now the petition will be considered also. It Cabinet decides that the sentence is not to be interfered with this decision will be communicated to the sheriff, who is under statutory duty to see that the execution is carried out within seven days of Cabinet’s decision. The petition which has been presented to Parliament, requests a retrial in another centre other than Auckland, or a reprieve. It does no*, make any practical difference. It will be considered just as the whole case would have been considered oy Cabinet. The petition was forwarded to the Crown through a firm of Auckland solicitors and is accompanied by a number of reports by Mr. P. J Brown, a private inquiry agent, of 1 Auckland.