CONFIDENTIAL
- 2 -
Dependent Territories but it would have to be clear that its recommendations were not based on policy on capital punishment in the UK.
6. Davidson (BVI) said he understood why the law could not be changed. However, there were a number of connected issues which troubled him. There was an anomaly of the level of competence in some territories. In his case, his Attorney-General was from Sri Lanka and had an imperfect knowledge of English. His wish to see automatic referral for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was designed to introduce a further, automatic, step in the Appeals procedure. He thought that this would be of some assistance to Governors, although it would not remove from them the ultimate decision. He felt that the present system denied this final Court of Appeal to those of modest means. A rich man could employ it as
a final desperate effort as could a pauper, who would get the necessary legal aid, but someone of modest means would be inclined not to do so since his estate would be liable to the costs involved.
7. Mr Russell (Caymans) said that invariably, if a local islander was involved, a conviction for murder was most unlikely. If, however, it was a foreigner, conviction was more or less a foregone certainty. The Creech-Jones policy was drawn up when circumstances were quite different. All of the remaining Dependent Territories in the Caribbean, other than Belize, had been part of larger colonies, e.g. Leewards and Jamaica. In the small island territories which remained, the Governor was quite often known to both the victim and the accused in murder cases. They would also be known to the members of the Mercy Committee. This created unusual pressures. An external Mercy Committee would therefore have much to commend it but he thought that his own Ministers would prefer a body sitting in London rather than a regional organisation.
8. Mr Dale (Montserrat) thought his Ministers would not accept a regional body. Local opinion was firmly in favour of capital punish- ment and would not accept change in the present practice.
9. Mr Godden (Anguilla) took the same view as Mr Russell. An external body would be of great assistance.
10. Mr Strong (TCI) felt that the UK Parliament should legislate to bring about the suspension of capital punishment in the Dependent Territories for a specific period, say five years. This would be troublesome politically but no more than the problems caused by individual cases. He thought it would be accepted in his territory as a policy decision from London. Mr Hennessy (Belize) said that his Ministers would definitely not accept that the UK Parliament could impose abolition or suspend it. There would be a major row between Belize and the UK, as there would be if there was any interference in the arrangements for the local Mercy Committee. Perhaps a Regional Mercy Committee for the smaller territories was the answer.
11. Mr Ridley said that the Privy Council was simply a further Appeal Court and did not therefore remove the ultimate problem. The question was whether to go along with local wishes in the territory or over- rule these via the UK Parliament. The question of abolition in Britain was not relevant. Much of the population favoured restoration of capital punishment and the matter was a very live issue there.
CONFIDENTIAL
/referendum
A