possession, but he might still have no lawful excuse and, indeed,
might intend to use the weapon unlawfully.
If this last proposed amendment be made it will
presumably not be necessary to keep the reference to domestic
purposes in sub-section (2). Nor would it be necessary to remedy
what is at the moment a glaring omission from the sub-section. Nearly every tradesman (be he butcher, baker or candlestick-maker) uses offensive weapons in the course of his trade and even in Hong
Kong many have their own tools. Such tools are neither solely for
domestic nor solely for defensive purposes so these tradesmen
must inevitably be guilty of this offence as soon as a curfew order
affects their area. Moreover, it seems that employees will not be
allowed to use tools even in their employers' premises while a
curfew is in force. Since tools for industrial purposes are not
excepted, even those factories which house their workers on the
premises will have to keep them idle during a curfew instead of
keeping them at their benches out of possible mischief.
There is
also room for argument whether possession of offensive weapons for
the purposes of a lawful sport can properly be said to be possess-
ion for solely "domestic" purposes.
Sections 36 and 37
The Governor may declare a place a closed area and a
person issuing a permit allowing entry into such area may cancel
such permit without the giving of notice of any kind in either
case. We realise the desirability of the Governor's having a
free hand, but surely there should at least be publication of the
order in the Government Gazette as soon as reasonably practicable.
What we have said about the giving of notice of cancellation of
a permit to be out-of-doors during a curfew applies equally to the
cancellation of closed area permits (see note on s.31).
16.