TNAG-0721-FCO40-919-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 17

t

!

1

}

X

!

CONFIDENTIAL

}

there are serious constitutional objections, to achieving

this result otherwise than by way of legislation. It would

be unconstitutional for the Secretary of State, under the

guise of exercising the Crown's residual prerogative, in

effect to suspend the law in each of the DOTS concerned

providing for capital punishment. Accordingly, even if there

were a departure from the Creech-Jones practice, the

Secretary of State would still be bound to consider each

case as it arose on its merits, and decide in the light of

all relevant circumstances whether or not to advise the

Crown to commute. It is very unlikely that the Governor concerned, in deciding that the law should take its course,

would have overlooked any relevant circumstance and, even

if he had done so, he would speedily review his own decision

when that circumstance was brought to his notice.

15. Thus a departure from the Creech-Jones practice should not, in principle, produce any different number of commuted Oasen than would result from a continuance of the present practice. (As respects the Associated States, there is in any event no scope for a new practice since their Governments have been given an undertaking that the Crown will not be advised to interfere with the local decision concerning the exercise of the delegated prerogative of mercy) It may

nabl

$

be argued that a departure from the Creech-Jones practice would enable the Secretary of State to take into account, when considering each case, the fact that the death penalty for murder has been abolished in the United Kingdom and any views expressed in the House of Commons or elsewhere about the desirability of abolishing it in the DOTS. But neither the fact of abolition in the United Kingdom nor abolitionist views expressed in the House of Commons or elsewhere could

/be