THE REPORT OF THE EDALJI COMMITTEE.
[To TIM EDITOR OF THE *SPOOF/MOM:1 Sut,—The Eduiji Committee has reported that the evidence given at the trial did not justify the conviction of Edalji. It was not, therefore, a casein which something brought to light' after the trial modified the views then taken on the subject. The Committee has also reported that the refusal of the Home Office to interfere with the verdict was in "accordance with the principles acted on by the Home Office in cases where it is alleged that there has been a wrongful conviction." The allegation may be proved, and yet these principles may prevent any interference with the verdict. What inference are we to draw from two such findings? Mine is that the principles which guide the Home Office in such cases are radically erroneous. The Committee is too timid to suggest any Littera-. tion in these rules It therefore proposes that the Home Secretary should in this instance make an exception, and set aside a conviction which "ought not to have taken place." And the Home Secretary, after much hesitation, consents to make the exception—for this once only ! Is it too much to hope that this exception will become the rule, and that hence- forth the Home Secretary will stretch a point and interfere with all convictions that "ought not to have taken place " ? He would not then witness once more the painful'spectacle of his subordinates doing "all that was possible in the interests of justice" during three long years, and finding themselves at the end as far teem having done justice as they were at the beginning. They tOiled'all night and caught nothing.—I ran,
Previous page
