59
Section 3(2)
Section 4(1) ·
(b)(i)
It is difficult to see what distinction it is intended
to draw between the authority which may be given to
"any member of His Majesty's Armed Forces" and that
which may be given to "any class of persons"; a
1
distinction is presumably intended otherwise it would
•
be unnecessary to make specific mention of members of
the Forces. An amendment to clarify this is desirable.
If Regulation No. 32 is no longer in force, this
definition of the persons whom it is the duty of an
authorized guard to arrest is ineffective and a new
definition must be substituted which should state
clearly and, preferably, without reference to any
other enactment who these persons are. Even if
Regulation No. 32 is still in force such an amendment
is in any case necessary since it is not possible with
any certainty to say of a person who is outside a
protected place that, if he were inside such place,
the provisions of para. 3 of Regulation 32 would apply
to him. The intention appears to be that it shall be
the duty of an authorized guard to arrest persons whom
he finds in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a
protected place and reasonably suspects of entering or
attempting to enter such place without proper authority
or of acting illegally or otherwise without proper
authority within such place, and it would be best that the
Ordinance should state this explicitly.
Section 4(1)
(b)(ii)
It is difficult to see how an authorized guard could
reasonably suspect a person of having committed an
offence under Section 8(c) since such an offence is
▼
not complete unless ar
and until the person in question
fails to satisfy a Magistrate etc. An amendment is
necessary to except offences under Section 8(c) from
the operation of Section 4(1)(b)(ii).
Section 5(a)(i)/