TNAG-1005-FCO40-1254-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 39

L

нка 380/8

1:

KKY NO.

- 6 OCT 1981

香港ER

府

PA

CONFIDENTIAL AND

PERSONAL

Mr. Mc Quat 4:0

Enter Miss Brett Rooms 14

Робот

Mr. Williaman

GOVERNMENT HOUSE

HONG KONG

24th September 1981

Pl. submit

otos to me

your agreed by 10 Out on what

Der

Dick

achon we that now take

int

Ministers

DR 2/10

Вишно

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Please refer to your letter of 10th September (18) in which you put various questions to me following my meeting with Mr Ridley.

2.

In your paragraph 2, you say that if there were a prospect of an execution in another colony it would be likely that HMG would be asked why sentences were commuted in Hong Kong with an eye to U.K. parliamentary opinion but not elsewhere. Executions have been carried out on a number of occasions in other colonies over the past decade without this question being pressed either in Parliament or here.

I am surprised you expect Mr Ridley's correspondence with Mr Marks to have radically changed the situation. I accept that we should be ready with an answer.

I the papers Shave: linked the A two practices

3.

However

From your paragraph 3, I note that Rushford believes that, while there is no direct constitutional difference between the situation of Hong Kong and other colonies, there is nevertheless a difference. This is because in the case of Hong Kong there are circumstances which make it more likely that the House of Commons would assert its right to question a decision by the Secretary of State to advise the Queen to reject an appeal. If this were raised in the House could not the Minister draw on the Colonial Secretary's statement of 6th November 1975. But as seen from here, so long as executions are not carried out in Hong Kong it is unlikely that the Minister will

R D Clift Esq

Hong Kong and General Department Foreign and Commonwealth Office London

/ 2

LAST

REF.

(26