212 sat in the Court only once during this period (at the Court’s centenary in 1889) and his position in the Court was abolished in 1909. From 1809 until 1840, the Prime Minister, served as the president of the Court, but was removed as a result of the reforms of 1840. Similarly, while the members of the Court were appointed by the King in Council, from 1840 a practice of consultation with the Court was introduced, so it was theJustices of the Court, with a fewexceptions, who made the decisions. According to the Constitution of 1809 the Supreme Court had four major fields of work: 1. Reviewof draft civil and penal legislation 2. Drafting definitive clarifications of statutory provisions as guidelines for the administration 3. Final decisions in civil, criminal and (to some extent) administrative cases 4. Opinions on applications for mercy. The reviewof draft legislation laid a heavy burden on the Court in a period of rapid development. The Court on different occasions reviewed amendments to the Codes of 1734 and exercised full control over the process of reform of penal legislation ending in the enactment of the new Penal Code in 1864. Later, in the early twentieth century, the Court accepted the introduction of conditional release, conditional sentencing and probation. It looked favourably upon a reduction of the level of penalties imposed in general, and in particular, milder treatment of those undergoing imprisonment in default of paying fines and for a reduction of the use of loss of civil rights as an addition to a severe sentence. After the end of the period 1850-1920, it also consented to the proposal concerning the abolition of capital punishment and accepted the viewthat young offenders be submitted to mandatory care instead of imprisonment. Many Justices of the Court wanted the legislature to be more active in amending existing offences to encompass more recent activities by disaffected social movements such as inciting rebellion, strike breaking and offences against the Church. On the whole, the Justices believed in the criminal lawas a means of controlling society, provided that its application was fair and reasonable. With regard to clarifications of legislation proclaimed by the King in Council, it need only be mentioned that the need for such statements decreased as Parliament began to meet more frequently. During the period 1850—1920 only one such statement was issued (in 1865). Cases where the death penalty had been applied by an inferior court called for special attention. All such cases (from 1850, only involving intentional acts causing death) were submitted to the King and reviewed by the Court. Where the Court upheld the sentence, it nonetheless sometimes supported an application for mercy to convert the sentence to imprisonment for life. Many trivial offences committed by “ordinary” citizens were presented to the Court, as until 1915, no restrictions existed on the right of appeal. Regarding appeals in general, the Court was careful not to alter the level of punishment. Many of the more modern Justices, however, although clear that the acts in question were to be regarded as serious threats to society were nonetheless uneasy about using the full strength of the penal lawto punish them. The same relatively lenient attitude appeared in cases where the offender had acted from a political or (anti)religious conviction. During the period 1850-1920, the Court also gave its opinion on every application for a pardon. It took the view that reviewing such applications was clearly a judicial function. Every opinion was divided into two parts: one concerning the applicability of the prerogative of pardon to the present case, the other the suitability of a milder punishment. While the Constitution of 1809 expressly provided for a power to pardon.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=