§ 27. Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement upon the affidavit made by Mancini's solicitor, a copy of which has been sent to him by the right honourable Member for Rochester and Chatham, to the effect that the Crown made a private offer to Mancini's defence counsel to reduce the charge to one of manslaughter; and why, in view of his recent announcement regarding mitigating circumstances, the reasons for the making of this offer did not result in a commutation of the death penalty, subsequently carried out, despite his knowledge of the private offer to reduce the charge.
§ Mr. DeedesThis case occurred when the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South was Home Secretary.
It is the case that discussions took place between counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defence on the question whether a plea of guilty of manslaughter should be accepted. Discussions of this character are informal and "off the record," and acceptance of a plea to a reduced charge is subject to the approval of the trial judge. The Judge was consulted in this case but, in view of the lethal nature of the weapon used, he considered that it would not be right for the prosecution to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter.
These facts were subsequently before the then Secretary of State, but he did not consider they afforded sufficient grounds for recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. The grounds for a decision on whether or not to advise the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in a particular case are not disclosed, but there was nothing in this case to support the view that the prosecution was doubtful whether Mancini could properly be convicted of murder. The issue of manslaughter was left to the jury, but they brought in a verdict of murder. The Court of Criminal Appeal and the House of Lords found no reason to interfere with the verdict of the jury. My right hon. and gallant Friend does not think that the decision of his predecessor in this case was inconsistent with what he himself stated in the House on 16th February, 1956, to be the practice, namely, to recommend a reprieve if there is a scintilla of doubt as to the prisoner's guilt.