TNAG-0837-FCO40-1045-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1981 — Page 22

(w/24

eittir his Executor Council or

D

long- Standing

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT : VIEWS OF GOVERNORS

1. In the United Kingdom the Royal Prerogative of Mercy rests in Her Majesty but is exercised by her on the advice of Ministers in London. In the dependent territories the prerogative is by specific constitutional provision delegated from the Sovereign to the Governor who is required to exercise it on her behalf in his

diliberati judgment

own personal discretion. He is first required to consult an Advisory Committee whose composition, in the more advanced constitutions, usually comprises members of the Cabinet of Ministers with or without other members. The Governor is not, however, bound to comply with their advice. In some but not all territories the Constitution requires the Governor to notify Ministers of his reasons in the event of his acting against their advice. Where the Governor decides to exercise the prerogative and commute the sentence, this action exhausts the Monarch of her prerogative. Where however the Governor decides not to exercise' the prerogative, that is to allow the Law to take its course, the royal prerogative is not exhausted and The Queen still retains her ultimate right to exercise the prerogative Herself on the advice of Her British Ministers.

2.

]

This ambiguity of power became apparent after some distressing cases in African territories after the war where serious delays occurred when legal advisers of convieted persons sought to pursue petitions at the last minute and where Parliament became involved. It therefore became necessary to establish clearly defined The

d principles to which the British Government would adhere in such

ulation to the wind presojative matter &—and these principles were spelled out to Parliament in 1947 by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr Arthur

Creech-Jones. One of the purposes of The "Creech-Jones doctrine"

indicated.

was

was to pinpoint precisely where responsibility lay for the difficult decisions which have to be made in such cases. I t

thought essential that the responsibility should rest with one person, and for this reason the views of the Advisory Committee

releive do not absolve the Governor from his personal responsibility.

This is a responsibility which no Governor welcomes: it is no

/only

CONFIDENTIAL