TNAG-0931-FCO40-1149-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1980 — Page 86

CONFIDENTIAL : STAFF IN CONFIDENCE

-3-

Argument

7.

The points raised by Mr Davidson do not alter the basis

on which Ministers took their decision earlier this year.

There

is some force in the argument that territories with populations as

small as an English provincial town should not retain a say on so

fundamental a question as the maintenance of capital punishment

for murder. But this comes up against the main argument that the

dependencies are normally allowed to manage their internal affairs,

and against the willingness or otherwise of Ministers to introduce

legislation in Parliament to override the wishes of the dependencies,

by a temporary, suspension whether by outright abolition of the death penalty for murder.

An important consideration is that in Hong Kong, where the death

penalty still exists but where executions have not been carried

out since 1973, the Governor is of the view that any move by London

to effect abolition by changing the law would lead to serious protests.

8.

There is, however, a real burden upon individual Governos

which they have had to bear for many years and which became more

onerous when abolition took place here. Most of them middle-ranking

officials, they have to take a decision on the kind of issue

which certainly troubled many Home Secretaries but of which Ministers

in the United Kingdom are now relieved.

9.

In Mr Davidson's case, hisconscience may possibly oblige

him to resign rather than perform his constitutional duties. It

can, of course, be argued that Mr Davidson should not have accepted

an appointment where he knew that such a decision would be required.

However, when Mr Davidson was appointed in 1978, he was told that

the aim of the then British Government was, if possible, to avoid

/any

CONFIDENTIAL: STAFF IN CONFIDENCE