TNAG-0931-FCO40-1149-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1980 — Page 169

THIS IS A COPY THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN CLOSED UNDER FOI EXEMPTION NO,

HKG 025/1

- 2 APR 1960

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

51

GOVERNMENT HOUSE,

TORTOLA,

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS,

M. Clipp

cs. The seave (16)

Aida

?

+

025/1

3 J Stratton Esq CMG 1. Bliggend

R

FCO

Dear Dick.

1.

20 March 1980

prepare diff in cons, witho

Wind

by (he call. 14. Apr. Bay)

11 Amil

POLICY TOWARD THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

(14)

281

See 10

m

HKG.380/485/1

луча

1. Over the last few days I have been/thinking quite a lot more about your/letter of 1 February and the FCO memorandum on policy toward the Dependent Territories. When I wrote on 29 February, I said that from the UK standpoint the tougher policy on delegation toward those who still opted for the UK connection made sense: likewise its public statement. But I felt at the time that I should wait a while before taking up your invitation to suggest any changes in nuance to accompany publication.

2. As I reflect, I still feel that publication should serve the general interest, but wonder if there could be something to be said for a bit more by way of explanation first. Not to change the policy, but to explain it in London to the Colonial Governments concerned. All parties will then know where they stand. Perhaps too the presentation might be more positive: there might be the gloss that under the new look (to use shorthand) colonial practice in capital cases would become subject to the direct purview of the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind UK Ministerial responsibility to Parliament, and the vastly changed colonial world since "Creech-Jones" thirty years ago, this gloss would seem in line with the new policy. The lawyers should be able, I imagine, to find a way through the Constitutional hoops to cover a statement that from now on colonial capital cases will in all instances be subject to total review by the Judicial Committee judgment would be submitted to the Secretary of State.

-

whose

3. I am prompted to all this by a current murder case here: also from studying once again the papers of the 1978 Gaston in particular, the report of the Trial Judge.

case:

It is true that in the Gaston case the Appeal Court accepted the jury verdict but the personality and views of the present Chief Justice no doubt bore on this. Thereafter, as you know, the Privy Council refused leave to appeal. I speak without much knowledge, but it does surprise me a little bit that in today's Western world a capital case could be denied automatic review at the highest level. Is this something to be thought about?

SEE 6

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

14.