was inserted to meet local objectors.
Our agree-
ment was finally given on the political ground of
non-interference.
It follows that we do not in
principle reject the possibility of repealing
Section 10(2) and Section 10(4) as such.
3.
Nevertheless, we wonder whether this is
Its
necessary or desirable at this stage, unless you
have reason to fear that someone else is likely to
abscond and that new precautions, (surveillance,
removal of passport and airport passes, use of
Section 18 etc) are unlikely to stop them.
Section 10(2) relates to the underlying nature of
offences under the Ordinance, which will be the
subject of the second part of the inquiry.
bearing on the question of escape is incidental,
as is the case with Section 30. To delete this
subsection for administrative reasons would
presumably give rise to the same objections as were
raised before in Hong Kong about the whole of
Section 10. This would reduce the political
defensibility of the whole section. It would also
seem to some extent to prejudge and prejudice the
review of the whole ordinance to which we will all
have to give very careful consideration.
4. We would therefore prefer not to delete
Section 10(2) and Section 10(4) at this time,
If, however, you consider that this change is
ortonlind now, in order to allay public
disquiet and stop other suspects leaving, we
will consider it furthor. It does not
!
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
}
}