GOVERMENT HOUSE HONG KONG.
TUE 31 MAR 92 11:58
PG.12
2
ll
in
"embarrassing
situations"
Right
explanations
"conduct"
is
OF none
laid
at
all
the before
who
raises
court invariably through police
give
inadequate
particular concern.
The
testimony alone and not independent third party testimony from a The danger of abuse seems so great in The introduction
victim ΟΙ other witness.
this particular instance as to justify repeal. of a "second chance" to enable the accused to explain in cou~~ is not a solution to this problem.
Substitute Available
5.
The Police
question persons in
existing
available
in
have the power to should
stop and
An public who act in a suspicious manner.
is already substitute
the for
loitering offence
section 54 of
the Police Force Ordinance (Cap
232).
This provides:
W
It
be shall
lawful
for
any police officer to stop and
6.
search and if necessary to arrest and detain for further
inquiries any
person
other public place,
whom he may find in any street or ΟΙ on board any vessel, or in any
conveyance, at any hour of the day or night, who acts in
a suspicious manner
he or whom
may suspect of having committed ΟΙ of being about to commit or of intending to commit any offence."
The
considered LRC
t
this that
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
it alter
privilege
Neither does
of innocence, OF impinge upon the self-incrimination. The LRC noted that this under review by another sub-committee on police
the presumption
against
provision
Was
power
of
stop
and search
reason
for it
but
did
not consider this to be a to defer its recommendation of repeal of section
160 (1) on loitering.