PS LPS PS
CONFIDENTIAL
97 111/12-171121
Lund Pay Sands
Mall
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDEPENDENT TERRITORIES
1. Mr Luce has seen the attached submission from Mr Clift and Mr Donald's minute, and, after careful consideration, has commented that he agrees with the recommendation. The Minister has commented that to change the present policy might stir things up unnec- essarily and create considerable difficulties. He thinks it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
2.
Mr Luce has further commented that should the question of capital punishment be raised in the future, by the requirement for a further execution (there are, however, no cases pending at the moment), then this would obviously be raised in Parliament and then would be the time to look at all this again.
Bows Bran
HKG 38018
***NY HO. ?
23 NOV 1981
BBR
а
PL Bean APS/Mr Luce
4 November 1981
cc:
Mr Donald
Mr Ure
Mr Rushford
Mr Edwards (WIAD)
Mr Clift (HKGD)
The Lord Privy Seal has seen these papers. He agrees with Mr Luce that this will inevitably become a live issue again one day, but, since it is not causing anyone any difficulty at the moment he sees no compelling reason to revive the question. He is content that for the time being the status quo should continue ie. that death sentences in Hong Kong should always be committed by the Governor in Council.
Murtultum.
MA Arthur PS/Lord Privy Seal
9 November 1981
cc:
as above
Also at HKS 380/3
CONFIDENTIAL
PS/MrLuce
PS/IPS
CONFIDENTIAL
30/10/5 3
Mr Williamson Hugo
we spons.
RuyL 18/ xi
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES
1. Mr Luce and the Lord Privy Seal should both see the attached submission which deals with the problem of HMG's different approach to capital punishment in Hong Kong compared with the other dependent territories. The LPS may wish that the Secretary of State should either see the submission himself or be aware of its recommendation.
2.
I entirely endorse the recommendation that there should be no change in the present position. It is also Sir Murray MacLehose's strong recommendation that the present policy should continue.
3. The need for examining the problem arose following certain exchanges between Mr Ridley and Mr Marks which attracted attention in Hong Kong. If Mr Ridley had visited Hong Kong as planned this autumn, I feel sure the issue would have been raised with him in some form or another. I think there is much less risk that Mr Atkins will be pressed when he goes to Hong Kong in the New Year. If it is raised, a firm statement that nothing had changed since 1975 would probably be accepted and if Mr Atkins were asked why Hong Kong was treated differently, I suggest that he should say that while the constitutional position was the same for all colonies, the absence of an elected legislature in Hong Kong made a difference in UK political terms even though HMG did not accept the differentiation. This suggestion flows from correspondence with the Governor of Hong Kong.
29 October 1981
Astmeld
A E Donald
cc:
Mr Ure
Mr Rushford
Mr Edwards, WIAD
нка
38018
CONFIDENTIAL
-WANY KO. 23
2 3 NOV 1981
FUER
BBR
PA
Also at HKS 380/3