!
We think that in sub-s. (3) the officers should be
empowered to give only such orders "as may be necessary or expe-
dient" and that once again it is dangerous and unnecessary to give
them an absolute discretion. It is to be noted that the existing
section does not give them an absolute discretion in relation to the
use of force and there seems to be no justification for the wide
discretion in relation to the giving of orders. Once again, this
provision must not be looked at in isolation from the other pro-
visions in the Ordinance.
Section 12.
Sub-s.(2) makes an unlicensed assembly or a disobedient
assembly of three or more an unlawful assembly without any need to
show the possibility of a breach of the peace which is otherwise
required under s.18. Nor is it certain that a person is guilty of
an offence under sub-s. (3) only if he persists in his conduct after
a police officer has declared the meeting to be unlawful: he
already may be guilty merely by virtue of his presence, however
innocent nis intentions. In this connexion it is noted that under
sub-s.(3) it is an offence merely to form part or to continue to
form part of an assembly deemed to be unlawful, whereas under
s.18 (which actually creates the offence of unlawful assembly and
makes it a more serious offence in that it contemplates a breach of
the peace) the accused must actively take part. It is difficult
there should be this distinction and we think that it
is dangerous to include the words, "or forms or continues to form
part of", since they may lead in practice to the conviction of
mere idle spectators. In our view it is desirable that every offen-
ce under this section should expressly import mens rea.
Section 14
on s.33.
See comments on definition of "offensive weapon" and
6.