CONFIDENTIAL 機密
ANNEX B TO XCC(77)64
It is the belief of the overwhelming majority of the population here that the application of the death penalty is a moral duty of Govern- ment and that failure in recent years to use it has not only been morally wrong but in practice imposed an unnecessary handicap in the fight against crime. Members of Executive Council personally remain deeply troubled in their consciences about the present situation. There would therefore be a deep and widespread reaction to any new and negative move by HMG in this field. A small minority would probably welcome abolition either on normal abolitionist grounds, or because it removed a contradiction between the decisions of the courts and the action of the executive.
{
2
2
It has gradually come to be understood here that failure to use the death penalty is not the fault of the Hong Kong Government. Furthermore the people have become accustomed though not reconciled to commutation in all cases. The success of the Police and Government in stopping the rise in crime and in beginning to reduce it has somewhat detracted from the urgency of people's demand that the death penalty- must be used to protect them. For all these reasons there is no longer so much surface heat in this issue, and commutations are no longer regularly criticised in the press. However the strong conviction is still there underneath and would certainly boil up to the surface if the issue' were given renewed publicity by any of the initiatives you propose. It is inevitable that the reaction would take the emotive form that Hong Kong wishes and interests were being overriden by UK attitudes and/or political expediency.
3
My first comment is therefore a strong plea to leave things alone and say and do nothing. The issue might eventually be resolved either by a change in sentiment in Parliament that would allow the Creech Jones doctrine to be applied, or by sentiment here changing and thus enabling the death penalty to be abolished by a decision that was seen to be local.
4
Of the alternatives suggested in your paragraph 3, (v) is the least objectionable because it amounts to no more than an admission of what has been the case for the last 5 years, and since it could be presented as such here would trouble the public least.
:
5
3(i) to (iv) would all be deeply resented here.
6
Between (iii) and (iv) my preference is for Order, in Council because it is an act of the Executive and could not give rise to speculation
!
CONFIDENTIAL
機安