+
reasonably fear that a breach of the peace was likely" though not
intended. If only one person in the assembly then embarked on a
venture of his own and took up a private but violent quarrel all
the assembled company would be guilty of riot. This seems a
somewhat drastic "modification" of the common law (see Comparative
Table annexed to the Bill). At common law, riot is "a tumultuous
disturbance of the peace by three or more persons who assemble
ว
together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist
one another against any who oppose them in the execution of an
enterprise of a private nature, and afterwards actually execute the
same in a violent and turbulent manner to the terror of the people".
Thus three or more persons must have a common and violent purpose
and only those who are turbulent are guilty of riot. In view of
the heavy penalties already imposed for unlawful assembly by s.18
(3) we think that this extension of the crime of riot is unjustifia-
ble.
Section 20, 21 and 22.
22 In each of these sections it has been provided that
1
a person may be convicted of the offence there created whether or
not he has been charged with or convicted of any other of fence under
this Part. The effect may be merely to chalk up against a prisoner
a series of convictions (whether with concurrent or consecutive
sentences) based upon substantially the same facts. However, since
the published Objects and Reasons give no indication of the purpose
behind the provision we can do no more than urge that the purpose
be stated and express our anxiety about the possibility of the
ing provisions be abused: the practice of accumulating convictions
by means of a multiplicity of charges has been adversely commented
upon by the courts in Hong Kong on a number of occasions in the
past.
9.