-
2
d
1
5. To impose abolition from London would mean departing from the convention of not imposing laws concerning a domestic matter of
this kind upon any territory against the wishes of the local govern- ment. This is, of course, particularly well-established in those territories which have already achieved a substantial degree of local autonomy. There is also the practical problem that at the moment abolition could only be imposed effectively in all the terri-
tories concerned through an Act of Parliament. This not only raises the difficulty of finding parliamentary time; the Government might also need to rely on substantial support from members of the Opposition to get the bill passed (if a free vote were allowed as in recent consideration of capital punishment in the UK).
6.
A third and very strong argument against imposing abolition is the row this would cause in Hong Kong (see paragraph 6 of the attached memorandum).
-
7. The arguments are well balanced. On the one hand the prospect of further executions in dependent territories will cause increasing repugnance and each case will risk a political crisis (both in the territory and in the UK). On the other hand, the logical solution, to bring the territories' law in line with our own by imposition from Westminster, would cause a much greater row. There are clear constitutional objections to any de facto abolition by overriding the Governor's exercise of the prerogative of mercy. But, without going that far, the most practical course seems to be to continue the present policy in law, while discreetly encouraging Governors to avoid executions as far as possible. In a sense this would be simply to continue a process which has already begun despite Bermuda in 1977, the tendency has been for executions to decrease. Ministers may consider that, since the Governor of Hong Kong believes that the present position can be held there, it is reasonable to adopt a similar approach to the other territories.
-
8. It would also perhaps be sensible to reconsider the position in 4 to 5 years time. By then those territories where it is not feas- ible to abolish capital punishment by Order in Council (Belize, Bermuda and Montserrat) may be either independent or clearly on the way to independence. This would thus leave us free to use Orders in
CONFIDENTIAL
/Council