TNAG-0216-FCO40-252-Detainees-and-prisoners-convicted-for-offences-during-the-di-1970 — Page 89

equated that of Mr. Grey and who was not

due for release (with full remission) until

1971.

6.

Strictly speaking, the Board was not entitled under Rule 69A to review the case

of

since the latter was serving

only a five year sentence. However the

Governor gave administrative instructions

to the Board that it should review the sentences

of all prisoners serving sentences of four

years or more. This ploy was successful;

was

a number of confrontation prisoners were

released and in particular

released last October. This was quickly

followed by the release of Mr. Grey.

7. Having completed their review of the

sentences of all confrontation prisoners

serving more than four years, the Board

has no power to undertake any further review

of any sentences for another two years,

unless the Governor onee again instructs

i

them to do so. Having bent the rules once in order to be coperative, I see no reason

why we should expect the Governor to do

so again. The ploy to secure

release (and the release of a number of

other confrontation prisoners) stretched

credibility to the limit. Last June the

"China Mail" in Hong Kong gave front page

headlines to a letter from 80 prisoners &

accusing the Board of Review of being particularly

partial towards left wing prisoners; the

following month the unofficial members of

the Board became upset at the extent of

the criticism being levelled at them in

private conversation by many who did not

approve of any leniency towards this category

of prisoner.