TNAG-0845-FCO40-1055-Visits-of-Foreign-and-Commonwealth-officials-to-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 86

welcomes: it is not only personally distressing but it:sometimes places great strain upon his relationships with his Ministers and other close political advisers and with the people of the territory. So long, however, as the responsibility is his a Governor will discharge it faithfully and honourably, taking account of all the circumstances and not allowing his personal feelings to override the public interest.

3.

It would place Governors in an untenable position and make it no longer possible for them to comply with existing constitutional : requirements if their personal discretion and responsibility were to be shared in some way with Ministers in London or if the advice tendered by their Advisory Committee were to be in some way secondary to views expressed to them confidentially from London.

4.

There are two other main reasons why the Creech-Jones 'doctrine' was adopted in 1947 and why it has served so well for more than thirty years. First, it takes account of the widely differing social systems obtaining in different territories in different parts of the world. It leaves to the men on the spot Governor, Ministers, advisers the difficult judgment of how each particular case should be viewed in the context of the society within which it was committed. The effect and relevance of local beliefs, fears, habits such things as sorcery cannot be easily understood or reliably assessed from afar. Neither can local public opinion or possible public reaction.

5.

Second, the Creech-Jones doctrine takes account of the important principle that power should go with responsibility. It has been consistent British policy to devolve upon the Governor and his Ministers constitutional responsibility for the maintenance of law and order and the administration of justice. One of the factors to which a Governor and his advisory committee must always give due weight in deciding upon the death penalty is the effect their decision will have upon public security and public confidence. But that is not the only factor: where a decision leads to public disquiet or disorder and in recent years this has been the case after a decision to commute as well as after a decision not to commute it does not necessarily, mean that the decision was ill advised. The incidence of such cases is happily very small compared with the many cases where decisions either to commute or to carry out the sentence have contributed to public peace, order and confidence. But the important thing is that

<<

2.

/the decisions

-