TNAG-0837-FCO40-1045-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1981 — Page 57

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

HKG 380/2

27 JUL 1979

Reference

HKG 380/2

13

Thank you

I do

Mr McLaren

DESK

INDEX

lve сам

or

lack 1

hold up

nur.

vmy муч

unh Thmk allow progress

in drafting is Pasnelt's

submission

#

lo

paper to Munisters Pout the furt step is to discurs

others. You are with Mr Stratton and

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES arranging a weeking

1.

We should now consider, in the light of the recent House of Commons decision to retain abolition, what recommendation we should put to Ministers on the retention of capital punishment for murder by certain dependencies and on the existing Prerogative of Mercy procedures and Creech-Jones doctrine.

-

2. Since a free vote was allowed in the House, it is surely unlikely that Ministers would wish to impose abolition by UK Act of Parliament (the only practicable means) on those dependencies whose own Governments have chosen to retain it (for example the Bermuda House of Assembly voted narrowly in favour of retention in May). Furthermore, any Bill would need to consider the position in Jersey and the Isle of Man, where we have a long-standing convention not to intervene in domestic matters. Could we allow Jersey to retain capital punishment and yet deny Bermuda that right?

3. The recent Caribbean Conference of OAGS suggested local Governments be asked to consider abolition for a test period and that a paper describing Governors' joint views be prepared. It is interesting to note that test abolition was proposed by Mr Russell, who considered only two years ago that there would be a strong adverse reaction to this.

4.

The paper on Governors' views was drafted by Mr Posnett and circulated to Governors for comments. These comments do not appear to be among the files remaining in his cupboard, and I have written enquiring about the state of the paper and offering to take on the exercise where he left off, if his Ugandan responsibilities make completion unlikely in the near future. Since the first draft has much to say on the Creech- Jones doctrine and possible changes, it would, I suggest, be premature for us to prepare any recommendation to Ministers before the paper has been completed and can be considered before making a submission.

1267jü

26 July 1979

cc:

Mr Duff, WIAD

Ms Falconer, M&CD

Authany lla

A E Clarke

Hong Kong and General Department

CONFIDENTIAL