CONFIDENTIAL
5. David and Kenneth also raised the discrepancy between the legal position in Hong Kong and our proposals to abolish
in the Caribbean DTs. I see their point. But the existence of a difficulty in Hong Kong is not an argument for not tackling the problem in the Caribbean Dependent Territories. The different constitutional position in Hong Kong has meant that we have been able effectively to instruct the Governor always to commute. This option is not
open to us in the other territories, as the law officers
have recently re-confirmed. But I am confident that we can
defend the decision on the basis
a) that we are proposing to legislate in respect of Territories who will, for the foreseeable future, remain
under the Crown;
b) it would be wrong to insist that Hong Kong should be required to follow the United Kingdom lead in such a sensitive area when we were seeking to build up the
territory's autonomy in the run-up to 1997.
c) formal abolition in Hong Kong would not prevent the post-1997 government there reintroducing the death penalty.
6. The case for change remains as set out in my 13 December minute. It is, if anything, stronger. A decision on the fate of the condemned man in Anguilla is overdue. The Governor is under the strongest local pressure to proceed. And, as I noted above, on the most important division in the capital punishment debate last December, the House voted 2:1 against restoration of the death penalty.
7. We have explored all other options for engineering change in the Caribbean DTS. Most were non-starters.
However, I have looked carefully at the idea of announcing, in Parliament that HMG hoped that local governments would introduce legislation to abolish; and that meanwhile we
would not wish to see executions carried out. I thought it would be possible to use this as leverage on the Governors
RM3AWZ/2
CONFIDENTIAL
X
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.