TNAG-1005-FCO40-1254-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 41

CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL

- 3

-

The

Secretary of State and on the Governor-in-Council. objectors would probably include both bishops, one or two senior members of the bar and law society, the chairmen of the local branches of Justice, Amnesty etc, various other pressure groups perhaps more interested in embarrassing the Government than in the issue itself. At the receiving end it would appear to be a respectable body of opinion. There would be counter pressures and representations from the vast majority of the population, but at least it could be claimed in London that support for the death sentence in Hong Kong was not unanimous. It would therefore seem to me inevitable that a debate of some sort would be contrived in the House, either on the principles involved in the announcement, or on the first occasion that a death sentence was confirmed, by the Governor-in-Council.

7.

Since the last election there has been a vote on capital punishment on a motion introduced by Mr. Eldon Griffiths in July 1979, and the abolitionists had a majority of 119. I know Mr Ridley thought that a vote on whether there should be capital punishment in Hong Kong would be quite different to a vote on whether there should be capital punishment in the U.K.

as on the Eldon Griffiths' motion. I must say I was surprised at this view. I should have thought rather that the outcome would be unpredictable with odds in favour of the abolitionists. I, for one, would be extremely reluctant to decide to allow the law to take its course, if I knew the decision was subsequently to be the subject of debate along uncertain lines and of unpredictable outcome in the House.

8.

Of course the reintroduction of the death penalty in Hong Kong would be very well received by the vast majority of the population and be taken as a sign that H.M.G. listens to public opinion in Hong Kong. But, by the same token, there would be total disillusionment if this policy were subsequently reversed either by vote in the House or by a change of government. Therefore I would regard continuity of policy in this respect as an essential. At the moment the rule is commutation and the reasons are understood, though I agree the position is unsatisfactory politically and at law. Nevertheless at present it is accepted and everyone knows where we stand. I do not

think the death penalty should be reintroduced unless similar continuity in its implementation can be guaranteed by H.M.G., and given the changing complexion of the House, I do not see how such a guarantee can be given.

/4