TNAG-0599-FCO40-747-Capital-punishment-in-Dependent-Territories-1977 — Page 34

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 51 13 JUL 177/

Mr Steel, Legal Advisers

нка 38011

2

(SD

Dependent Territories: Capital Punishment

Please refer to the attached minute from Sir Ian Sinclair and other papers on the above subject.

Before putting these papers back to the Secretary of State, I should be grateful for your urgent advice about the point on Rhodesia raised in Sir Ian's minute. What would the position be under our present proposals and should we take any account of the Rhodesian situation in the draft minute to DOP?

. Swall

J. S. Wall)

11 July 1977

Private Secretary

1.

Having been told of the exercise which has culminated in this submission to the Secretary of State, I have in fact considered its implications for Rhodesia and have previously mentioned the point to the Department.

2.

The position is as follows. So long as Rhodesia remains in law a colony and we are not seriously considering anything else for the transition period - the Prerogative of Mercy must be vested in The Queen's representative, ie the Commissioner. We could provide for his exercising it entirely on the advice of some local body but our current thinking is that he will exercise this power, like all his other powers, entirely "in his discretion" (which means in accordance with such instructions as the Secretary of State may give him). For much the same reasons as prevent the Secretary of State, in the case of other colonies, from fettering his future discretion to look at each case in the light of its particular circumstances, it would not be proper to give the Commissioner a general direction that he must exercise the Prerogative of Mercy in all cases. But there could be no objection to giving him a direction to refer to the Secretary of State any case where he is minded not to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy. There is therefore no obstacle to applying to Rhodesia the general policy now being proposed.

13. I