TNAG-0486-FCO40-551-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 16

(17865) Dd.145178 400m 5/73 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863

NOTHING TO BE written IN THIS MARGIN

avoid.

CONFIDENTIAL

6.

If you were to ask HMG to abolish, the

possibility of trouble here might depend on how

publicly, categorically and irrevocably ExCo made this

request. We have already asked Governors to consider

abolishing the death sentence. If ExCo were now to

agree without qualification, then there should be no

problem. But the logical thing then would be for you

to change the law in Hong Kong, which could be the

most straightforward solution of all. The

considerations in your para. 5 perhaps bear more on

this possibility than on the likelihood of trouble in

Parliament if HMG changed the law. If on the other hand

ExCo still felt bound to oppose publicly what they

had recommended to HMG in private, we would be little

if anything further forward in terms of UK/Hong Kong

relations, or of the attitude of Ministers to Hong Kong,

or of the possibility of avoiding an issue in

Parliament.

7.

To sum up I believe that, for Ministers in

the UK there would be little to choose between a

decision by ExCo to commute, permanently or

temporarily, or a decision to change the law within

Hong Kong. A public request to HMG to change the law

would have fewer attractions, but might be acceptable,

depending on its terms.

8.

I realise that this is written from the point

of view of the UK alone; but that is what you have

asked of me. I could however be wrong, and Ministers

might be quite prepared to support a return to the

Creech Jones formula of support for your decisions

except in a case of miscarriage of justice.

Presumably

/this would