TNAG-0931-FCO40-1149-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1980 — Page 16

CONFIDENTIAL : STAFF IN CONFIDENCE

-4-

any more executions taking place. He is therefore now asking to

be relieved so far as possible of the responsibility for an

execution.

10.

In minuting on an earlier version of this submission,

Mr Harding suggested that Mr Davidson should be given positive

Ministerial guidance on the question. Mr Day suggested that, if

Governors were to be helped, it could be done by:

a) legislation in Westminster to abolish capital

punishment for murder or by transferring the

final decision on mercy to a Secretary of State

of HMG; or

11.

b) indicating to Governors that if they felt disposed

to commute a death sentence in their own right and

purely on grounds of conscience, they would have the

full support of HMG.

The first option would require a change of the previous

Ministerial decision on policy. The second also poses problems.

It is certainly right that Governors should be assured in advance

that their decision will be supported. But it would not be right

to tell them that conscientious objection to capital punishment

is a factor which they can properly take into account in reaching

a decision. Governors are under oath to carry out their duties

in accordance with the laws of the Territories and must respect

laws imposing capital punishment. The same objections apply to a

suggestion by Mr Davidson that Governors should be officially

instructed that they may take into account the non-use of the

death penalty in the United Kingdom. The departmental Legal

Adviser concurs on both these points.

/12.

CONFIDENTIAL: STAFF IN CONFIDENCE