TNAG-0931-FCO40-1149-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1980 — Page 34

36 2

PERSONAL AND RESTRICTED

49

PAGD -

HHAJARED - advicepl HKG 380 AED

74 My Harding

GOVERNMENT HOUSEOVED IN Kees.

TORTOLA,

22 JAN 1981

Child Cleste

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS.

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

REMISTRY

Decemb

BBR

Sir Michael Palliser GCMG Permanent Under-Secretary of State,

CAPITAL CASES

·

PA

RAS

22/07

ble boi

1.

I have just discussed with Peter Ramsbotham possible executions looming here and, although the matter is well known to the Department, he suggested I wrote direct to you. He also said he would have a word with you when he got back next month.

2. The background. Two St Vincentians are under sentence of death in our gaol for killing a Virgin Islander and local opinion strongly wants them hanged. Submission to the Appeal Court is now in the pipeline, and hearing could take place as early as mid-January.

3. The issues I discussed with Peter Ramsbotham, agreement

(

were:

and we found

a) The anomaly on capital punishment between the UK and the

BVI: this is a subject in itself, familiar and hardly needs comment. With small dependencies there are also likely to be anomalies of competence to deal with such a serious issue. I have already reported to WIAD some doubtful legal advice locally tendered. There are other aspects.

If you have time to refer, Arthur Watson's letter to you dated 13 July 1978 put it all very succinctly indeed.

b) Privy Council Appeal. In the old days of Empire, the hoops for appeal were understandably difficult. But in today's world does present Privy Council drill stand up? Should there not now be assumption that all colonial capital cases be at least referred to the Privy Council? And perhaps more? When Chalwell was hanged here in the mid-1970's for killing his girlfriend, I am told his family lacked money to appeal to the Privy Council. Leave to appeal was not sought. Nothing went up in forma pauperis. Which may get back to the local competence issue just mentioned. It is only partly incidental when I say I am by no means sure how well the Chalwell episode would stand up to contemporary review.

c) The discretion criteria relating to the prerogative of mercy.

Following the Gaston case in 1978, existing criteria (dating at least to the 1940's) are publicly known in BVI. Looking back to UK Royal Commissions, they were no doubt well known in UK too. But are they known today to the UK press and Parliament? (I don't think they are.) And should they be? (I think they should.) And who should make them known?

I suppose now the FCÓ.) I also think FCO guidance on the need for governors' sensitivity to local opinion should be in the open;

even if it were not possible to go all the way and say the advice of the local executive/Mercy Committee should normally be followed: - which would obviously make things easier for governors. Any change in criteria toward abolition should likewise be in the open.

4. I have tried to write concisely. In general, I think London should be one step forward in it all rather than one step back. This is also Peter Ramsbotham's view. I do realise it is difficult. time is pressing and I hope the slant from here may be understood.

Yours

Ris Davorom

But

cc:

HE The Hon Sir Peter

J A Davidson

Ramsbotham GCMG GCVO

PERSONAL AND RESTRICTED