CONFIDENTIAL
C. In asking the Governor to introduce legislation to abolish
capital punishment, there was a risk that we would seriously
damage his relationship with members of the legislatures of the
territories concerned.
d. If some dependencies were excluded from the application of
any changes in our policy towards capital punishment in the dependent
territories the Government would bo accused of differential treatment.
On the other hand there was a risk that the argument in favour of
universality would automatically push Ministers in the direction of
preferring option 10v. If the question of universality was not
over-riding, then various combinations of the options set out in
paragraph 10 might be possible. It might be possible to introduce
a two-tier system combining option i. and option v. Option i. would bo used in the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Cayman Islands and Montserrat and option v. for the rest. If necessary Hong Kong might be excluded altogether. If all the other Dependencies, cither by logislation or executive action abolished the death penalty there was unlikely to be any difficulty with the Executive Council in Hong Kong,
as the present arrangements would continuc as before. On the other hand
if Hong Kong was excluded, the other Dependencies might complain that Hong Kong was receiving more favourable treatment. Including Hong Kong would relieve the Governor of the task of going to Executive Council two or three times a year to obtain their approval for commutation.
C.
There would be certain advantages if cases came directly to the
Secretary of State. If the Governor had decided not to commute the death sentence and he was then over-ruled by the Secretary of State, it would be argued in the Dependency that this had been done largely in response to United Kingdom domestic requirements. If the decision rested solely with the Secretary of State, it would be possible to argue that his decision to commute had been based on balancing both local and United
Kingdom factors.
2
!
CONFIDENTIAL