TNAG-0837-FCO40-1045-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1981 — Page 40

it would be improper

Problem

DSR 11C

1. The recent vote in the House of Commons against there introduction 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

advise

2. I recommend that Ministes should be ashed to cover whether they wish to maintain the long standing poling of not intervening debio where dependent territory governments have decided to retain capital punishment, or whether they would prefer to take steps to secure its abolition

in all teritories.

parent an

ut e

the

Chowever

5. It should be emphasised that the Creech-Jones doctrine is no more than a long-standing convention, and does not deprive the Secretary of State of his legal power to intervene and

execution should be wish to do so. His in fact happened in 1973 when then Secretary of State, Sir Alee Donglas. Home, intervened to prevent an execution in Hong Kong. At the time the House of Commons were considering the question of capital punish- ment in Northern Ireland, and Sir Alec considered that to allow an execution to take place in a British dependency while the debate was in progress. This exception to the normal policy has since been defended on the grounds that from Hong Kong differ from the other territories in there capital punishment is outained in not having a democratically elected local government (a somewhat unconvincing explanation since it is common knowledge that the overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people support the use of capital punishment, even though this consensus may not have been expressed, as in the of the territories, though the vote of an local assembly).

elected

89280 Dd 532113 200M 2/79 StS