TNAG-1005-FCO40-1254-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 53

15

нна

38018

Original at:

нки

026/13

This Copy for:

Information only/Action-on-

Para(s)

ΦΟΝΙ

NFIDENTIAL

ле! акт

MR RIDLEY'S MEETING WITH SIR MURRAY MACLEHOSE ON 25 AUGUST 1981

Present

Mr Nicholas Ridley MP

Mr R D Clift

Sir Murray MacLehose

Mr D R Ford MVO OBE

GBE KCMG KCVO

10 SEP 1981

#TRY

ог

ken

38R0219 Kooks

лит Muss Britt Should see pin.

it - Capital Pun

Mr K D Temple

Mr P J Williamson

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

1. Mr Ridley said that he was concerned as to how he could defend in Parliament the different policies HMG had on the death penalty in Hong Kong on the one hand and in the remaining Dependent Territories on the other. For some years the Creech Jones doctrine had been allowed to prevail for the latter but not for Hong Kong. This dis- crepancy had not been picked up until Mr Ridley's letter to Mr Kenneth. Marks MP had been made public. Now Hong Kong were aware that there was a difference. Sir S Y Chung had questioned him about this and he had to say that he was not aware of all the facts but would discuss it with Sir S Y in November when he visited Hong Kong.

2.

Mr Ridley said that there were three options: to maintain the status quo, to apply the Creech Jones doctrine to all dependencies including Hong Kong, or to prevent the death sentence being carried out not only in Hong Kong as at present but also in the other depen- dencies.

3. Sir M MacLehose said that speaking as Governor of Hong Kong he would have to advocate the reintroduction of the death penalty there if violent crime became so prevalent as to renew public demand for its reintroduction. This had not yet happened though it might. He believed that there was little interest in Hong Kong in the issue but he could check this when he returned to Hong Kong and let the Minister know what he concluded.

4. Mr Ridley said that he doubted whether the argument that the constitutional position of Hong Kong and the other dependencies was different was sustainable in Parliament or public. Sir M MacLehose said that it had been accepted for many years and would remain acceptable. It would be particularly difficult if Parliament were successfully to censure the Government after Ministers decided that capital punishment should again be allowed in Hong Kong. He further pointed out that while the great majority of people in Hong Kong were strongly in favour of capital punishment, there was a very articulate minority who were against it. They could become a very strong lobby in Parliament.

CONFIDENTIAL

/5.