in
"embarrassing
ΟΣ
explanations "conduct"
situations"
who
at none
all raises
give
inadequate
The
night particular concern.
is laid before the court invariably through police testimony alone and not independent third party testimony from a The danger of abuse seems so great in other witness. ΟΙ
The introduction particular instance as to justify repeal.
"second a
victim
this
of
chance" to enable the accused to explain in court
is not a solution to this problem.
Substitute Available
5.
question persons
existing
substitute
available
232).
54 section in
This provides:
the have should
to power Police The
stop and
in public who act in a suspicious manner.
is already offence for the loitering
the of
Police Force Ordinance (Cap
An
6.
་
It
shall be lawful for
any police officer to stop and
search and if necessary to arrest and detain for further
inquiries
whom
he may find in any street or board any vessel, or in any
person any
on ΟΙ
other public place,
convevance, at any hour of the day or night, who acts in OI whom he may suspect of having of being about to commit or of intending to
a
committed O=
manzer
suspicious
commit any offence."
The
LRC considered
that
this can
achieve
the
object of crime prevention at less cost to the integrity of the legal system than can section 160 (1) in that it does not abridge the right of silence enjoyed by a suspect, by compelling answers
enquiries under a form of statutory compulsion.
to
Neither does
it alter
privilege
the presumption
against
innocence, of
self-incrimination.
OF impinge upon the The LRC noted that this
provision Was under review by another sub-committee on police
power
search
but
did not consider this to be a to defer its recommendation of repeal of section
of
and stop
reason for it
160(1) on loitering.
1