TNAG-0931-FCO40-1149-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1980 — Page 99

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

Reference

HKG 380/2 30

Miss Brett-Rooks t-Rooks HK and GD

mno. Cift.

Plow ill

You

мод

Ró

BBR

Mo. Wallace's comments.

wish to unindo again refre

айшие лейни шо

Rushfend 3RuttRoom. 514

?

I agree generally with Mr Rushford's suggested insertion.

2.

As he says, it would be necessary (at least in most dependent territories) to amend the Constitution before an

The local Governments outside Advisory Body could be set up. would not agree to such an amendment. They would argue that the decision in a Capital Case should be seen to be taken locally; and any attempt to change the existing arrangement would be regarded as an unwarrantable interference in the int- ernal affairs of the territory.

3. On a minor matter, at the end of his insertion, Mr Rushford refers to the posibility of improving local advisory bodies so that the Governor might have the benefit of less biased counsel. This is well worth further consideration but it is really very difficult indeed, in a small island community, to find suit- able persons willing to serve and who would be unbiased.

31 October 1980

hch. Wollnu

W W Wallace

West Indian and

Atlantic Department G123/3

233 4569