PS/Mr Sainsbury
CONFIDENTIAL
FROM: D H Gillmore
W37 270 2156
16 November 1989 PS/PUS
Mr Beamish
Legal Advisers
FIKB
380/1 cc:
HKD
FID
SPD
SED
UND
WIAD
[CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES]
1. I agree that the reply to Mr Rees should be in cautious and factual terms, and that we should not go into more detail than in Mr Gorham's draft.
I
2. On the wider issue, I hope that in due course it will be possible for Ministers to look at this whole matter again. understand the reasons why, as recently as in 1986, Ministers endorsed yet again the Creech-Jones guidelines. But I have always felt uneasy. Not only does Creech-Jones place immense responsibility on the shoulders of Governors, but it does so in circumstances where the Governor's decision has to be taken in the village-pump atmosphere of tiny territories where public feeling is likely to be running high. These circumstances mean, for example, that a convicted murderer from outside the territory is more likely than an indigenous murderer to face a strong (even violent) mood in favour of execution (a point hinted at in paragraph 3 of the attachment to Mr Rees's letter). Notwithstanding the fact that the final decision is for the Governor alone, it is not, in my view, helpful that the Advisory Committee's role is to take account of all factors, including the state of local public opinion.
Кластик
DH Gillmore
CONFIDENTIAL
Reg
Mr Stone
30
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.