TNAG-0721-FCO40-919-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 49

The disadvantage of this solution is that it would tend

to undermine the Goernor's position as the principal

authority concerned, and might lead to more petitions to

the Crown and other pressures on the Secretary of State

than have hitherto been experienced.

12. There would moreover seem to be little object in

departing from the Creech-Jones practice unless as a result

the Secretary of State found himself free to commute the

death sentence in every case so as effectively to abolish

or suspend capital punishment in the DOTS concerned. But

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 the 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

cases 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

1

CONFIDENTIAL

/Governments

D 107991 400,000 7/76 904 953