TNAG-0723-FCO40-921-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 26

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

IN VIEW OF PARLIAMENT'S KNOWN ATTITUDE TOWARDS CAPITAL

PUNI SHMENT, AS SHOWN BY ITS DECISION TO ABOLISH CAPITAL

PUNI SHMENT FOR MURDER IN THIS COUNTRY, SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT

NOT REGARD ITSELF AS OBLIGED TO ENSURE THAT CAPITAL PUNISH-

MENT IS NOT PRACTICED IN ANY BRITISH TERRITORY?

We have

The administration of justice in the dependent territories

is a matter for the governments of those territories.

repeatedly made known to them the views of the British

Government towards capital punishment and invited them to

change their own law accordingly, but under existing policies,

we cannot force them to change if they do not wish to do so.

WHO DECIDES AT PRESENT WHETHER THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF MERCY

SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN A CAPITAL CASE IN A DEPENDENT TERRITORY?

The Governor, after taking the advice of his Executive

Council or local Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy.

WHY WAS THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY ABLE TO

INTERVENE TO PREVENT AN EXECUTION IN HONG KONG IN 1973?

Unlike other dependent territories, where the decision to

retain capital punishment has been taken by democratically

elected local legislatures, Hong Kong has no elected local

government. It was not inconsistent with the general policy

for the Secretary of State to advise HM The Queen to intervene

to prevent an execution taking place there in 1973.

- 2

1

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.