Sir, – I believe that in our system of justice a man is found to be guilty or not guilty as charged and so if Harry Gleeson was guilty of murder 75 years ago then the question is- why is the State and the President now granting him a pardon?
On the other hand if the conviction is found to be unsafe then he has to be considered to be “not guilty” so then why would he even need a pardon since he was not guilty of anything in the first place?
Surely now it would be more correct to quash this conviction altogether and pay compensation? To me “pardon” sounds very like “royal pardon” – I think we still have a long way to go. – Yours, etc, JAMES NEILL North Circular Rd, Limerick.