TNAG-1005-FCO40-1254-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 58

Reference...........................

........

13

Mr McQuade

McQuaA

Mr Williamson

попуга

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

1.

CONFIDENTIAL

нка 380/8

1. SEP 1981

полой

.e

Mr Ridley told me on 2 September that he had that morning mentioned the question of capital punishment to the Secretary of State and had promised that we would be putting up a paper on the subject. Mr Ridley said that the Secretary of State's initial reaction was to agree that the anomaly between Hong Kong and the other dependencies was indefensible. He thought we should submit on these lines. I suggested that I should first check with the Governor in order to see how he assessed the situation on his return to Hong Kong. I also mentioned that the Legal Advisers' view was that there was a constitutional difference between Hong Kong and the other dependencies. Mr Ridley acknowledged this but said that he had doubts as to whether that difference could be used to justify anomalous treatment on capital punishment.

2.

Action:

If we have heard nothing from the Governor on this question by 9 September, would Mr Williamson please draft a teleletter from me to Sir Murray asking for his views on:

3.

a) the likelihood of EXCO making an issue of the problem

at present;

b) the likelihood of members of EXCO voting in favour of

a hanging if a difficult case comes up;

c) his further thoughts on the use of the constitutional

difference as a justification for not hanging in Hong Kong.

I should make clear to Sir Murray that Mr Ridley still personally inclines to a logical tidying up (ie hanging in Hong Kong) and that initially the Secretary of State appears to agree with this.

Sup

3 September 1981

Registry.

Bu to me

R D Clift

9.9.89.

J2.9.8.

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL