៩
as criminal.
(iii) paragraph (b) is so wide that it cannot avoid making
criminals of many persons who would not normally be regarded
Every person who issue a writ and who is sub-
sequently held to have had no good cause of action would
appear to be guilty of an offence. It might be at least
understandable if the section had read "which to his knowledg
such other person is not legally obliged to do" but we
submit that it cannot be allowed to stand in its present form
Section 28
Here again "unlawful assembly" has not been confined
to assemblies which are unlawful by virtue of Part IV of the
Our observations (i) and (ii) upon s.27 apply equally
Ordinance.
to this section.
t
It is an alarming feature of the section that the
entire assembly, whatever its size, may become an intimidating
assembly solely by virtue of the act of one individual in it
without participation in that act by the other members of the
assembly and even without their knowing of it. As the penalties
for membership of an intimidating assembly are no greater than
those for membership of an unlawful assembly this would not produce
any serious injustice to the mere members of the assembly, but it
produces a possibility of the grossest injustice to the organizers
of the assembly by reason of the inter-action of this section and
s.30. This injustice will be referred to in more detail in our
comment s on s.30 and here we say no more than that we think only
such persons in the unlawful assembly as speak or otherwise behave
manner should be an intimidating
in an intimidating assembly. It follows that in our view more
than one person should be guilty of such speach or behaviour before
there can be an intimidating assembly.
We are unable to understand the purpose of making
13.