J
England that even a pencil may be a useful weapon for defending
oneself against a criminal attack and it is therefore clearly
recognised as being suitable for causing injury. That would not
matter if the sections creating offences in relation to offensive
weapons required a violent and guilty intent, but they do not.
Thus s. 32 would presumably have the result that a newspaper
reporter who had in his possession in an area under curfew a pencil
not for domestic purposes but for the purposes of his work, would
be guilty of an offence. If, of course, when carrying it he were
to have the intent to commit an unlawful assault it is right that
he should be liable to conviction, but he would be so liable even
if the words "or suitable" were omitted, although then the pro-
secution would have to prove his guilty intent. Is that an unaccep-
table burden when the alternative is to drag in the person carrying
an "innocent" object for an "innocent" purpose? We hope not.
6. "Public meeting".
་
This is, of course, tied up with
the definition of "meeting" but at present this also is far too
wide, It will, for example, include any private party (even a
family party) held in a public restaurant. Is the Commissioner of
Police prepared to receive applications from and to issue licences
to every gathering, for whatever purpose, held in a public place?
Is it reasonable that such applications should have to be made at
all, let alone 7 days in advance? We think not.
7 Section 3
There is no requirement that the opinion of the officer
must be based on reasonable grounds; he is given an absolute
discretion. We do not think that it is right or necessary that a
police officer of any rank whatever should be given such wide
powers unless he is ultimately answerable in a court of law.
is the more important in view of the extraordinarily sweeping
This
3.