§ 24. Mr. LOUGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an application has been made to the Privy Council in the Delhi conspiracy case for leave to appeal against the convictions; whether the hearing has been adjourned until a fortnight after the arrival in this country 1155 of the documents connected with the case; and, if so, whether the execution of the sentences will be deferred until after this application has been decided by the Privy Council?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe answer to each of these questions is "Yes."
§ 26. Sir J. D. REESasked whether any appeal lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against conviction and sentence passed by a Chief Court in India; and whether there is any precedent for delaying execution pending the hearing of an appeal or petition for reversals of any such sentence and conviction?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not a Court of Criminal Appeal and no appeal lies as of right to the Judicial Committee from conviction and sentence by one of the Superior Courts in India. The question of the functions and duties of the Judicial Committee as a Court of Review in criminal cases was fully dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in the case of Mr. Channing Arnold, and I beg to refer the hon. Member to Law Reports 41, Judicial Appeals, pages 172 and following. In 1912 an execution in India was postponed at the request of the Lord Chancellor in order to give an opportunity of being heard to the convict, who had lodged a petition for leave to appeal at the office of the Privy Council.
§ Sir J. D. REESIf the Judicial Committee is not a Court of Appeal, how is it that it has the power of delaying execution and sentence in order to peruse the records and, presumably, to pass orders upon them?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSThe Judicial Committee has certain powers as a Court of Review in these criminal matters, the nature of which has been fully explained in the judgment to which I have referred.
§ Sir J. D. REESAs a result will such appeals be allowed in future where it is clear there is no scandalous denial of justice, but merely an ordinary appeal?
§ Mr. ROBERTSI have no power to interfere with the existing powers of the Judicial Committee.