TNAG-0721-FCO40-919-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 75

CONFIDENTIAL

Er Rowlands

All Officers Administering the

Government [see attached list]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE DEPENDENT OVERSEAS TERRITORIES (DOTS)

1. You will by now have seen telegram no. ... telling you that Ministers have decided to defer a decision on the policy on capital punishment in dependent overseas territories, As you know from Stewart's letter of

27 Jamisry, Ministers were asked to decide whether the time had not come to abrogate the Creech-Jones doctrine so as to leave the Secretary of State completely free to take

into account all the considerations which seemed to him

relevant when making a recomandation to The Queen on th ex. size of the Prerogative of Meray.

2.

There are objections to an abrogation of "Creech-Jones", Firstly, if the doctrine were to be abolished the effect would be to split the final responsibility which is now devolved upon Governors for the exercise of the Prærogative and introduce a new situation whereby, although the Prerogative of Merey would still be devolved upon Governors, if they decided not to exercise the Prerogative but to allow the law to take its course, then there would be yet another stage introduced in the decision-making process in the parson of the Secretary of Stato. Only if a Governor used the Prerogative of commute a capital sentence would he remain the final authority,

3. There are also grave legal objections to the effects of an abrogation of the Creech-Jones doctrine. The principal concern is lest, following abrogation, the residual prerogative were to be used in effect to abolish capital punishment for murder in those DOTS which have decided to retain it, without giving either Parliament or Britain or the local legislatures in the DOTs the opportunity to debate the issue and to make a decision on

CONFIDENTI AL

Page 75Page 76