TNAG-0837-FCO40-1045-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1981 — Page 9

CONFIDENTIAL

(w/26

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 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 convicted persons sought to pursue petitions at the last minute and where Parliament became involved. It therefore became necessary to establish clearly defined principles to which the British Government would adhere in such matters 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" was to pinpoint precisely where responsibility Lay for the

difficult decisions which have to be made in such cases. It was

thought essential that the responsibility should rest with one person, and for this reason the views of the Advisory Committee do not absolve the Governor from his personal responsibility.

This is a responsibility which no Governor welcomes: it is not

/only

CONFIDENTIAL