TNAG-0722-FCO40-920-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 132

CONFIDENTIAL

governments, and the local governments would be unlikely to

concur. If nevertheless the constitutions were amended, the

decision in every case would rest exclusively with the Crown, as advised by the Secretary of State, who would necessarily have to rely on the Governor for guidance as to all relevant circumstances.

11. It cannot however be assumed that the governments of the DOTS, or their inhabitents, would prove acquiescent if the constitutions of the DOTS were amended to withdraw the long-standing delegations of the Royal prerogative in capital cases; on the contrary, such a change would be much resented. Furthermore, it would involve the major disadvantage of depriving local representatives of any part in the procedure. Governors and their Advisory Committees or Executive Councils frequently egree upon the exercise of clemency when relevant circumstances exist to justify this and even where they disagree the

Governor is often able to obtain the concurrence, or at any rate the acquiescence, of the Council or Committee concerned in his decision to commute the death sentence. The present local procedures result in commutation more often than not, and associate local opinion with it, and even where they do not the Governor provides a valuable link between the local representatives and the Secretary of State. Where any relevant ground for commutation exists, the Governor is better placed to evaluate it (if necessary in consultation with the trial judge, is Chief Justice, his Law Officers and other local officials) than officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (whose knowledge of local conditions and local law is necessarily skeichy) would be, and there would seem to be definite practical disadvantages in confining the exercise of the Royal prerogative to the Secretary of State and his officials in London.

Abrogation of the Creech-Jones Doctrine

12. It has been suggested that if the Creech-Jones "doctrine" were "abrogated" this would give greater freedom of decision to the Secretary of State, and in particular enable him to take into account extraneous matters which Governors do not usually consider. What I'm Creech-Jones said was simply a description of a long-standing practice; and, in strict law, no formal steps need be taken to alter the practice. Any Secretary of State is free, if he wishes

to

/reconsider

CONFIDENTIAL