TNAG-0724-FCO40-922-Policy-on-use-of-Prerogative-of-Mercy-1978 — Page 11

10

RECE

HKC 380/2

DESK

INDEX

- 6 MAK 1978

151

ESTRY

O.: Taken

No

све

CONFIDENTIAL

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

The Hon Sir Peter Ramsbotham, GCMG, GCVO

HAMILTON

1.

Dear Peter,

3 March 1978

Many thanks for your letter of 20 February in which you reverted to the proposal to change the relationship between the Governor and the Prerogative of Mercy Committee. We have asked Legal Advisers here about the constitutional and legal aspects of your proposal and submitted their opinion to Ministers. The legal advice which is long and technical can best be summarised by saying that there are no precedents and grave legal objections to taking away the responsibility for exercising the prerogative of mercy from the Governor to whom it has been delegated and placing it on a collective body which would take the decision by majority vote. Even if such a system were established, the formal responsibility for the action taken would be necessarily retained by the Governor.

2. At present the Governor operates as a buffer between the local committee and the Secretary of State. He can often influence the Executive Council or Advisory Committee in favour of commutation and can ignore their advice if it is ill-founded. At the moment in the British Virgin Islands there is a case where the Judge considers the jury to have been biased against an outsider convicted of murder. The Judge feels that the circumstances warrant a reprieve but it is not thought likely that the Mercy Committee will share this view. If the Governor were obliged to accept their advice, he would be powerless to take account of the trial Judge's opinion. The Committee is likely to take a stiffer line than the Governor so that more death sentences will be upheld than at present and the Governor would have no say in the deliberations of the Committee which would meet under the Chairmanship of a Minister rather than himself.

3. Ministers have considered the arguments for and against your suggestion but have said that they find the arguments against such a move outweigh the advantages of your suggestion.

4. We shall be writing shortly in answer to the other proposals for constitutional amendment in Peter Lloyd's letter.

Jower

evere

HA H Cortazzi