TNAG-1005-FCO40-1254-Capital-punishment-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 90

CONFIDENTIAL

-4-

H

Argument

10. It could be argued that HMG's position on capital punishment

should be consistent throughout all Dependent Territories where

capital punishment still prevails. Indeed, HMG has used this type

of argument in another context the Nationality Bill to oppose

the Gibraltar amendment. It is admittedly possible to defend its

exceptional attitude to Hong Kong on the grounds that, unlike the

other Dependent Territories concerned, Hong Kong has no locally

elected legislature. However, to employ this argument publicly would

offend local Hong Kong sensitivities. Also, as stated by the

Governor in a letter of 21 March 1980, the overwhelming wish of

the population in Hong Kong was for the so-called Creech-Jones

doctrine,under which HMG does not reverse the local decision, to

be reapplied.

11. It does not however follow that the Creech-Jones doctrine should

now be applied to Hong Kong.

-

Non-commutation of a death sentence

-

would provoke political outcry in the Territory, where there is a

significant though minority and largely expatriate body of opinion

against capital punishment. This would be echoed by parliamentarians

and others in the UK. Even stronger is the argument that it is now

some 15 years since a death sentence was carried out in Hong Kong

and a reversion to the use of the penalty after such a lapse of

time would be bound to attract strong condemnation and serious

political embarrassment. It could arise, for example, that the

condemned man might be a British expatriate in Hong Kong. The

problem is aggravated by the fact that the rate of death sentences

would be higher than in other dependencies; eg in 1980, 4 death

sentences were commuted.

CONFIDENTIAL

/12.

Page 90Page 91