TNAG-1004-FCO40-1248-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1981 — Page 13

нка. 380/з

TIAL

AS IN REGISTRY NO. 51

30 OCT 1981

DESK OFFICER

AZX

PS/Mr Luce

PS/LPS

PS

PA

BBR

REGISTRY

Action Takan

Of

Clift

30/1

उठणे

W

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

Mow

ро

1. Mr Luce and the Lord Privy Seal should both see the attached submission which deals with the problem of HMG's different approach to capital punishment in Hong Kong compared with the other dependent territories.

The LPS may wish that the Secretary of State should either see the submission himself or be aware of its recommendation.

2.

I entirely endorse the recommendation that there should be no change in the present position. It is also Sir Murray MacLehose's strong recommendation that the present policy should continue.

3.

The need for examining the problem arose following certain exchanges between Mr Ridley and Mr Marks which attracted attention in Hong Kong. If Mr Ridley had visited Hong Kong as planned this autumn, I feel sure the issue would have been raised with him in some form or another. I think there is much less risk that Mr Atkins will be pressed when he goes to Hong Kong in the New Year. If it is raised, a firm statement that nothing had changed since 1975 would probably be accepted and if Mr Atkins were asked why Hong Kong was treated differently, I suggest that he should say that while the constitutional position was the same for all colonies, the absence of an elected legislature in Hong Kong made a difference in UK political terms even though HMG did not accept the differentiation. This suggestion flows from correspondence with the Governor of Hong Kong.

Akstmeld

A E Donald

(11)

29 October 1981

cc:

Mr Ure

Mr Rushford

Mr Edwards, WIAD

Also at Hrs 38018

CONFIDENTIAL

!