KA
CODE 18 - 77
Mr W Quantrill
Hong Kong & Gen Dept
K 247
F
Reference
1.
Mr Bagnall has asked if we could give details of what steps we are taking with a view to preventing executions in Dependent Territories. I am not sure that it is wise to say that the abolition of the Creech Jones doctrine is a step to prevent capital punishment. To say so is to raise the objection that the Executive is using administrative methods to do something when legislative methods should be used. That in effect is the prime legal objection to the proposal to abolish the Creech Jones doctrine. Introducing that proposal in a letter which is prefaced by the difficulties we may meet in legislating may lend strength to such objections.
2. I think we should recast the letter to say that Ministers have carefully considered the matter and have come to the conclusion that the Creech Jones doctrine whereby the Foreign Secretary does not interfere with a Governor's decision in respect of the death penalty, save in cases of miscarriage of justice, should no longer apply in the remaining Dependencies where the death penalty is extant. The Foreign Secretary believes that he should now be in a position himself in each case where the death penalty has been imposed in a capital case to advise the Queen, having regard to all the circumstances relevant to the case, whether or not she should exercise her Prerogative of Mercy. You can then add the last handwritten paragraph of the draft. I have not attempted to actually draft the reply since you will no doubt wish to frame the reply in language which Ministers usually use.
I would be grateful if you would clear the final reply with Mr Rushford or
3. myself.
15 February 1978
2
hunt
J D P Bickford
Legal Advisers
ли
Me Bick for I
Gretef I if your traft.
ltured
umed now
look at the
нка 38611
RECEY
- 1 MAR 1978
*9.51
KEISTRY
Brion Taken
.
лия
D. C. LEVCIR
17/
нкий
INDEX
No
!