TNAG-2084-FCO40-2969-Death-penalty-in-Hong-Kong-1990 — Page 107

ti frequently weighs heavily and unfairly with Mercy Committees usually EXCO. Whereas, HMG is free to intervene on behalf of individual sentenced to death in other jurisdictions eg Iraq, intervention publicly in a Dependent Territory would be objectionable on a number of grounds and inter alia destroy the

authority of the Governor.

3. Although the last execution in a Dependent Territory was in

1977, the fact is that there are 13 cases current any one of which

could result in an execution. In one case, in Anguilla, the Governor is required to set a date for execution before the end of

this month. A Governor's task is made more complex by the real

risk that a decision one way or another may spark unrest and could

lead to a threat to public order. In 1977 (Bermuda) and 1978 (British Virgin Islands), we were obliged at some cost to deploy

the Armed Forces to control unrest. Another factor is that as a

result of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Soering case, we may find it increasingly difficult to secure the deportation to a Dependent Territory of someone convicted of an offence which carries the death penalty unless the UK Government is able to give a categoric assurance that the death penalty would not be carried out. Defending in Parliament and

elsewhere, nationally and internationally, our DT arrangements and a Governor, who in conscience decided he had to implement the death. sentence, presents obvious political difficulties, not least in relation to opinion in the Caribbean community in this country and

in the House. In present circumstances we are constantly exposed to

the risk of having to do just that.

4.

Against this background it will not surprise you to know that this matter has been reviewd on several occasions, the last of which

was in 1986. There are three ways we could bring about change:

viz

(i)

(ii)

administrative action;

legislation in the six Dependent Territories;