3
MR. RADFORD.
The Ordinance need not be disallowed.
General Remarks.
There is no provision for the expulsion or deportation by the Governor of an immigrant whose presence in the Colony is, under the provisions of the Ordinance, unlawful. Section 33(3) does, it is true, en power a magistrate to decree expulsion, but, if such order is not made, it might be too late for the Immigration Officer to act under section 11 and send immigrants away.
Attention might be invited to section 9 of the Kenya Ordinance of 1948, which confers on the Governor power of deportation: this power might be found useful in Hong Kong.
Another provision which has been found necessary in certain colonies is one making it possible to label an immigrant as being "prohibited" or "undesirable" even after he has entered the Colony. This is useful where the fact which renders the immigrant undesirable is discovered subsequently. Section 5(3) of the aforementioned Kenya Ordinance is an example. The Hong Kong authorities might consider the advisability of adopting such a provision.
No mention is made in section 11(1) of persons previously deported from Hong Kong or of persons who have been convicted outside Hong Kong of murder or other serious offence (compare section 5(1) of the Kenya Ordinance).
Special Remarks.
Section 2(c). The effect of the words "for the purpose of complying with this Ordinance" is not clear and an explanation would be appreciated.
(f). The advantage of defining "master" as meaning the captain of an aircraft is doubtful inasmuch as in sections 7(3), 11(4) and others, "master of a vessel" and "captain of an aircraft" are both used, and in other sections, for example sections 5 and 16, "master of a vessel" clearly does not include the captain of an aircraft.
Section 4.
It is not clear whether the "permit" mentioned in paragraph (b) is the same as the Entry Permit mentioned in section 34b). It would be advisable to make the point clear and to specify whether the permit must be in writing under the hand of the Immigration Officer.
Section 7. (4). This subsection unlike subsection (1), does not mention searching of the aircraft. It might be useful to make provision to that effect.
The
Section 9. (1) This subsection does not require the making and signing of a prescribed form of declaration, advisability of providing for such a requirement tät be considered.
The words "or tend to incriminate him" are open to the criticism that it is hardly justifiable to compel a would-be immigrant to supply evidence which may lead to his conviction on a charge unconnected with the Ordinance. This provision seems to go too far and should be reconsidered.
Section 11. (1) (a). It is not clear whether a person
/who