TNAG-0487-FCO40-552-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 178

Flag

CONFIDENTIAL

64

The Governor recommends in his telegram no. 366 that, as far as

possible, Ministers should stand on the formula we have already

proposed for Mr Sillars's PQ on 27 March, which reads:

8.

"The death penalty still exists in Hong Kong, but it has not

been carried out since 1966. The prerogative of mercy is

delegated to the Governor. His decision whether to reprieve

is taken on the merits of each case as it arises."

The Governor has recommended, however, that the last sentence

of this answer should be deleted, since in the light of his new

decision it could be embarrassing. The point is valid; but if we

are to keep to the line that we cannot comment on future decisions,

as suggested in paragraph 3 of the Governor's telegram, then the

constitutional position has to be made clear. Mr Ennals has

already agreed the draft supplementary answer. But I suggest the

last part of the answer should now be amended to meet both points

to read:

9.

11

...

delegated to the Governor, to be exercised in each

case as it arises."

•

The Governor's proposals for dealing with questions on the

future of the death penalty are more doubtful. He suggests that the

answer to suggestions that it be abolished should be "No" But

this could expose too much surface in a situation where we cannot

explain why abolition is unnecessary. I think we must sort this out

Meanwhile

in further correspondence with Sir Murray MacLehose.

I recommend that in place of the answer on the future of the death

penalty proposed for Mr Sillars's question, which was:

"This is a complex question on which I would not want to

comment without notice.", the Minister should instead

CONFIDENTIAL

/say: