CONFIDENTIAL
5
(SA)
163
((163)
170)
61
COMMENTARY ON SECTION I
Penard 33
It is the Governor's contention that he had been given to believe that HMG would not allow the executions to take place. He was surprised to receive FCO telegram No. asking for his opinion, but concluded that it must reflect a perceived need in London to go through some formal or constitutional hoop before it would be proper for a reprieve to be recommended to The Queen. The thought did just cross his mind as to whether something had gone wrong with the plan as he conceived it to be. He dismissed it as in the highest degree unlikely but thought it worthwhile nevertheless to put in his telegram Personal No. 32 the suggestions (referred to above) about the reasons why, as seen from Bermuda, HMG might think it reasonable to overrule the decisions taken in Bermuda.
The Governor has drawn my attention to the fact that at the time he sent his telegram Personal No. 32 on 27 October, the Commissioner of Police knew that a reprieve was to be expected because he had (necessarily) been consulted about the law and order situation that would result. The Premier also believed (following on his conversation with Mr. Rowlands and subsequent discussion with the Governor) that a reprieve would be granted. And one must recognise that, as a result, other Ministers had the same expectation. In short, up to 15 November, the expectation within the Bermuda Government was that a reprieve would be granted, and their responsibility would simply be to deal with whatever security difficulties might ensue.
What the Governor and his Ministers did not know was that British Ministers had already, on 13 October, decided that they were doubtful about the wisdom of changing the Creech-Jones doctrine at a time when Burrows and Tacklyn were awaiting execution. They so reported to the Prime Minister who commented (No. 10's letter of 24 October to the Lord President) that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would probably have to let the law take its course in the Bermuda case.
In considering this situation, the Department, with the concurrence of the Legal Adviser, advised the Secretary of State (Mr. Murray's submission of 19 October) that in Hong Kong, because there is no elected legislature, it had been considered acceptable in 1973 for the Secretary of State to overrule a decision by the Governor and recommend The Queen to grant a reprieve; but that in Bermuda, on the other hand, there being an elected local legislature, it would be inappropriate, in accordance with the Creech-Jones doctrine, for the Secretary of State to interfere with the Governor's decisions on matters of internal policy.
The submission went on to point out that there was a new Governor who could be invited to review the Acting Governor's previous decision; and that there was a petition to The Queen. It added: "In accordance with colonial regulations, the Governor should be consulted before the Secretary of State advised The Queen on how to reply" to the petition.
/The
CONFIDENTIAL