A
CONFIDENTIAL
'MR RIDLEY'S MEETING WITH SIR MURRAY MACLEHOSE: 25 AUGUST 1981
POINTS TO MAKE
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
1.
Problem is whether the position, by which in practice Creech
Jones doctrine does not apply in Hong Kong, can continue.
2.
Understand that article in 'South China Morning Post', quoting
my letter to Kenneth Marks MP, did not provoke much initial media
or public interest. Nevertheless it has drawn attention to the anomaly.
3. I saw Sir S Y Chung on 28 July. Told him I would reflect on
matter and go into it during my visit in November.
4. Will need to discuss position with other Ministers before then.
In meantime need to agree line for you to take, on your return at
end of month, with Unofficials and with media.
5.
With Unofficials, suggest you take line I took with Sir S Y Chung,
ie I was reflecting on the matter. With media, if pressed, you
could say that matter is political one which would require deal of
consideration before any change in current practice could ever be
contemplated.
6.
On the substance, grateful for your views on:
a) Pressure of opinion in Hong Kong. How serious would be a
reversion to Creech Jones in Hong Kong? How strong is
abolitionist lobby?
Understand majority favour death penalty.
b) Personally strongly favour consistent treatment. But realise
difficulty of change of practice after 16 years of no hangings.
in largest dependency. Nevertheless now that anomaly is out in
open, very difficult for Ministers to defend. Only logical
argument for different treatment of Hong Kong is lack of
elected legislature in Hong Kong, which puts special
responsibility on UK Ministers and Parliament.
Not aware
that this point has been used in Hong Kong, publicly or
CONFIDENTIAL
/with
Page 60Page 61