---་་---
16 In sub.s.(2) we assume that "shall not be deemed to be
acting" should read "shall be deemed not to be acting".
Section 15
17. Notice has to be given to only one of the "promoters
C
•
etc.". We see difficulty in ascertaining who is the promotor of a
public gathering, which by its very nature is frequently spontaneous
Assuming that the Commissioner is able to discharge the burden of
proving that the person to whom notice is given is a promoter,
questions arise concerning the need for proving mens rea. Under
sub-s.(3) a person who takes part in the promotion of a gathering
before, but not after, a prohibition may still be "a person who
takes part in the promotion.... of a public gathering which is ....
continued in contravention of" the prohibition. He would be guilty
of an offence on any reading of the section, there is no reference to
"a person who continues to take part in the management of a public
gathering which is continued in contravention of a prohibition
after such prohibition" and only such a person could, we think,
possibly have mens rea. This is, in any event, one of those
sections where it is open to doubt whether mens rea is a necessary
ingredient and the fact that one person can clearly be guilty with-
out it might suggest that it is never necessary. We suggest that
the sub-section be re-drafted to make mens rea an essential in
every case.
Section 18
18
The use of the words "or likely to cause" should be
compared with the similar words in s.13 (2). In the earlier section
they are unobjectionable because the accused must be guilty of
behaviour or words which are reprehensible in themselves as well
as likely to cause a breach of the peace. In s.18(1) the conduct
may be in itself innocent and yet for reasons which may not be
7.