TNAG-0723-FCO40-921-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 18

SECRET

AS A RESULT, I STILL WONDER WHETHER A WISE DECISION WAS REACHED ON MY PROPOSAL THAT THE GOVERNOR'S DISCRETION IN CAPITAL CASES BE REMOVED. 1 ACCEPT THAT, AS YOUR LETTER OF 3 MARCH 1978 TO ME SAID, A LOCAL MINISTER MAY BE LIABLE TO TAKE A STRONGER LINE THAN A GOVERNOR, AND THAT GIVING RESPONSIBILITY TO ONE MAY, THEREFORE, RESULT IN MORE EXECUTIONS. BUT I AM NOT (NOT) ALTOGETHER SURE THAT THIS REALLY WOULD BE THE RESULT: LAST YEAR'S EXPERIENCE SHOULD ENSURE CAUTION. MOREOVER, SUPPOSE THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION (PARAGRAPH 4 ABOVE) WERE THAT THERE IS NO PRESENT INTENTION, EITHER TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN DEPENDENT TERRITORIES, BY UK LEGISLATION, OR TO ABROGATE THE CREECH-JONES DOCTRINE, IT WOULD THEN SEEM TO ME THAT WHAT I PROPOSED SHOULD FOR HE COULD AFFORD THE SECRETARY OF STATE BETTER PROTECTION. FOR HE SHOW THAT ANY DECISION TO LET THE LAW TAKE ITS COURSE HAD BEEN TAKEN BY A LOCAL MINISTER, OVER WHOM HE HAD NO CONTROL AT ALL, RATHER THAN BY A GOVERNOR, WHO COULD GENERALLY BE GIVEN DIRECTIONS, EVEN IF NO DIRECTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER IN THIS PARTICULAR

MATTER.

RAMSBOTH AM

FILES

HD. OF HK & GD

HD.OF WIAD

PS/PUS

MR.CORTAZZI

MR. STRATTON

3

SECRET