The answer is NO. A Pardons Board does NOT have the AUTHORITY to reduce a Jail Sentence to House Arrest
( Reason? See no. 3 below on PREROGATIVES OF MERCY).
To change to House Arrest from a Jail Sentence by the PARDONS BOARD is amounting to CHANGING THE CHARACTER of the Court’s sentence.
But a PAROLE BOARD can decide if a prisoner should be released on parole.
WHY?
Generally, the prerogative of mercy takes one of the following four forms
1. a free pardon
2. commutation or a conditional pardon substituting one form of punishment for another
3. remission, REDUCING the amount of a sentence WITHOUT CHANGING ITS CHARACTER
4. release on licence/early release to parole.
EXPLANATION
In Australia, a PAROLE BOARD decides if a prisoner can be released on parole. The board considers the sentence imposed by the court and whether the prisoner has served enough time. A prisoner can only be considered for parole if they apply for it.
A parole officer supervises prisoners who are released on parole. The parole officer may visit the prisoner at home and ask them to complete certain tasks, such as community work or drug tests.
There's a distinct difference btween the pardon's board and the Royal Prerogatives. The pardons board is empowered to pardon a convict as is the King directly or through his delegates including the appropriate minister or through parliament through a pre ordained process.
By pardoning a convicted individual there is acceptance that he is pardoned for his offence. He is therefore when accepting the pardon accepting also that he was properly convicted.
Malaysian lawyers, judges and parliamentarians often demonstrate their ignorance of this and many other areas of the law and constitution when mixing one concept up with another.
Certain aspects of pardons, its origins and the concept of a full pardon are not understood by them (or the Australians who are still in the convict days in their minds).
A clear example is of this level of ignorance is in the case of the convcted and pardoned Anwar Ibrahim.
By allowing Anwar Ibrahim to register as a candidate for federal the seat of Port Dickson when in fact he remains a person tainted with the crimnal offenses for which he was charged convicted and jailed, the electoral office and their legal advisors (iuncludding the Attrooney General) demonstrated their collective ignorance of this situation.
A pardon does neither quash the conviction nor remove it from the records. It does not amount to an overturning of the conviction at all. Anwar did not apply for the conviction he was under to be set aside or quashed by a court upon his release. As such he was still disqualified from standing registering or putting himself up as a candidate for election for a seat in parliament. But he got away with it.
It is true that it is not the position of the pardon's board to reducce or tamper with a sentence. But by a pardon it does exactly that which demonstrates the Kings reserve powers (or prerogatives) whereby his powers enables him to do exatlcy that. But to replace an existing sentence with a new one (from jail to Home detention) is not within the powers of the pardon's board.
Parole is a completely different question under a different set of powers giveen to the paroles board.
They have common constitutional origins. Foo does not sugst Malaysia follow Australia as you put it. He cites loosley something about Australia's approachs to parons, rmission and a reduction of sentence by the prisons authorities, the pardons board and others.
ON THE QUESTION OF HOUSE ARREST BY THE PARDONS BOARD
QUESTION: CAN A PARDONS BOARD REDUCE A JAIL SENTENCE TO A “HOUSE ARREST” FOLLOWING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF “ ROYAL PREROGATIVES
OF MERCY?”
See here the Law in NSW, Australia: https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/legal-and-justice/royal-prerogative-of-mercy/Royal_prerogative_of_mercy_-_Fact_sheet1.pdf
The answer is NO. A Pardons Board does NOT have the AUTHORITY to reduce a Jail Sentence to House Arrest
( Reason? See no. 3 below on PREROGATIVES OF MERCY).
To change to House Arrest from a Jail Sentence by the PARDONS BOARD is amounting to CHANGING THE CHARACTER of the Court’s sentence.
But a PAROLE BOARD can decide if a prisoner should be released on parole.
WHY?
Generally, the prerogative of mercy takes one of the following four forms
1. a free pardon
2. commutation or a conditional pardon substituting one form of punishment for another
3. remission, REDUCING the amount of a sentence WITHOUT CHANGING ITS CHARACTER
4. release on licence/early release to parole.
EXPLANATION
In Australia, a PAROLE BOARD decides if a prisoner can be released on parole. The board considers the sentence imposed by the court and whether the prisoner has served enough time. A prisoner can only be considered for parole if they apply for it.
A parole officer supervises prisoners who are released on parole. The parole officer may visit the prisoner at home and ask them to complete certain tasks, such as community work or drug tests.
There's a distinct difference btween the pardon's board and the Royal Prerogatives. The pardons board is empowered to pardon a convict as is the King directly or through his delegates including the appropriate minister or through parliament through a pre ordained process.
By pardoning a convicted individual there is acceptance that he is pardoned for his offence. He is therefore when accepting the pardon accepting also that he was properly convicted.
Malaysian lawyers, judges and parliamentarians often demonstrate their ignorance of this and many other areas of the law and constitution when mixing one concept up with another.
Certain aspects of pardons, its origins and the concept of a full pardon are not understood by them (or the Australians who are still in the convict days in their minds).
A clear example is of this level of ignorance is in the case of the convcted and pardoned Anwar Ibrahim.
By allowing Anwar Ibrahim to register as a candidate for federal the seat of Port Dickson when in fact he remains a person tainted with the crimnal offenses for which he was charged convicted and jailed, the electoral office and their legal advisors (iuncludding the Attrooney General) demonstrated their collective ignorance of this situation.
A pardon does neither quash the conviction nor remove it from the records. It does not amount to an overturning of the conviction at all. Anwar did not apply for the conviction he was under to be set aside or quashed by a court upon his release. As such he was still disqualified from standing registering or putting himself up as a candidate for election for a seat in parliament. But he got away with it.
It is true that it is not the position of the pardon's board to reducce or tamper with a sentence. But by a pardon it does exactly that which demonstrates the Kings reserve powers (or prerogatives) whereby his powers enables him to do exatlcy that. But to replace an existing sentence with a new one (from jail to Home detention) is not within the powers of the pardon's board.
Parole is a completely different question under a different set of powers giveen to the paroles board.
What does a pardon by the US president mean to a jailed convicted killer? Is this killer set free?
Yes thats what a pardon effectively does to the pardoned. They are set free.
Hi C k Foo, This case is Malaysian, not Australian. Please clarify how Malaysia need to follow Australia.
They have common constitutional origins. Foo does not sugst Malaysia follow Australia as you put it. He cites loosley something about Australia's approachs to parons, rmission and a reduction of sentence by the prisons authorities, the pardons board and others.