1
CONFIDENTIAL
HK9 38013.
RECEIVED IN RAUSTEY WO. :
19 FEB 1981
CONFERENCE OF CARIBBEAN GOVERNORS IN BARBADOS:
19-21 JANUARY 1981
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
PA
REGISTI
jAction T
1
BBR
Also at HKG 025/1
1. Mr Ridley (in the Chair) invited Mr Morrice (HKGD) to introduce the items.
2. Mr Morrice said that the question of capital punishment in the Dependent Territories was probably the most difficult, and certainly the most sensitive subject on the agenda of the conference, since it was difficult for a Governor to divorce himself entirely from the difficult decision involved as to whether to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy in a capital case.
3. He said that the existing policy had been reviewed twice by Ministers since taking office and the decision not to change the policy had been taken in both instances. It was felt that abolition by legislation from London without due consultation would damage UK's relations with the Territory and that it would be regarded as a retrograde step. This would be particularly awkward in those territories with an advanced constitution. Legislation by Act of Parliament to alter laws of Dependent Territories would require Parliamentary debate. This had domestic political implications in the UK on which Mr Ridley would wish to comment. Furthermore, in the cases of Belize, Bermuda and Montserrat, it would not be possible to legislate by Order-in-Council. There was also the fear that the use of the Prerogative of Mercy from London as a general rule would be seen in the territories as an attempt to impose abolition by the back door.
4.
The problem for Governors was fully appreciated in London and careful thought had been given to the way in which the burden on them might be alleviated. There were practical and constitutional objections to the various possibilities considered. Ministers had been fully aware of the possibility of political unrest locally and of the pressure on Governors no matter whether they decided to allow the law to take its course or to commute. The Governors should be assured that HMG would support their decision no matter what it was and, if necessary, with an appropriate show of force.
5. The FCO remained open to any suggestions from Governors as to ways in which the burden on them might be relieved. The use of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not the answer since this was simply a further Court of Appeal. Two possibilities were: (a) to improve the composition of local Mercy Committees, where these
existed, or
(b) to create an outside Mercy Committee with appropriate represent-
ation from individual territories.
A change in constitution might be necessary in some territories and it would be seen as a retrogressive step in local political terms. Such a Committee could be set up on a regional basis to cover all the
CONFIDENTIAL
/Dependent