§ 18. Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the grounds upon which he decides, in the case of a person wrongly convicted of, and sentenced for, the alleged commission of a criminal offence, to grant a pardon instead of expunging from the record the wrong conviction; and the grounds on which he awards to such a person an ex gratia payment arrived at arbitrarily instead of compensation assessed on evidence adduced by, or on behalf of, such person before a judicial tribunal.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThe only power I have to undo a conviction and its effects is to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by way of a free pardon which has the effect of treating the conviction as if it had never been made and of remitting the consequences. The grant of a free pardon is entered in the records of the court and of the police.
With regard to the second part of the Question, compensation is a payment made in discharge of a legal liability for neglect or default and, where this is alleged, it is for the courts to determine liability and to settle the amount of the damages. Where legal liability has not been accepted and has not been established by a court any payment made is discretionary and is not appropriate for assessment by a judicial tribunal.
§ Mr. HughesWhile thanking the Home Secretary for that very full reply, may I ask him whether he realises that such a payment to an innocent person should be regarded not as an ex gratia payment, but as compensation or damages for a wrong inflicted on the innocent person? Therefore, does not he think that it should be assessed by a tribunal on evidence adduced publicly?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeOf course, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows much better than I, it is open to anybody who thinks that he has ground to take action in these matters, but there is a difference between compensation and ex gratia payments.