TNAG-0837-FCO40-1045-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1981 — Page 16

CONFIDENTIAL

A

7

Mr. Cortazes Jo P/s ivs

Mr Stratton

7~

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

Problem

1. The recent vote in the House of Commons against the reintro- duction of capital punishment for murder raises the question of whether some change is needed in the current policy towards the retention of capital punishment in certain dependent territories.

Recommendation

2. I recommend that Ministers should be asked to advise whether

they wish to maintain the long-standing policy of not intervening where dependent territory governments have decided to retain capital punishment, or whether they would prefer to take steps to secure its abolition in all territories.

Background

3. The administration of justice in the dependent territories has long been considered a matter for local governments in which it is not appropriate for the British Government to intervene. This includes the subject of capital punishment, both the question of whether it should be retained and, in territories where it is

retained, the circumstances in which it should be applied. Even the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been delegated to Governors, and although this does not preclude the possibility of subsequent appeals to either the Secretary of State or The Queen, the policy in such cases has normally been to support the Governor's decision (except in those very rare cases where to do so might result in a miscarriage of justice).

4. This policy, which is based on the assumption that the man on the spot is in a far better position than anybody in London to consider all the circumstances of a particular case, is known as

the Creech-Jones Doctrine, after the Colonial Secretary who set the policy out in a statement in December 1947 (copy attached),

although in fact he was doing no more than describing what was already a long established practice.

5. The Creech-Jones doctrine is however no more than a long-

standing convention, and does not deprive the Secretary of State of his legal power to intervene and prevent an execution should he

CONFIDENTIAL

/wish