M. Ress Williams
M. see my
i
passed
ла,
minute of 6 Nov. following which you 21
raft of No 10.
The Gori, in soll, has five found way
}
to wat wy
and lapse hat we out. accept his views.
? as mis
$1.
지
Ani's Ṭ. Aloyd,
217 and
9.1.48
I do not-see how the Governor
can make
Yo big
of
or manner
4. 4 (') (4) (i) more specific.
define lipped of loitering appearance would be unpertsible
veer at prefend beel- &
my
conviction.
M. Roberts toray
After 8/1 / 48
The suggestion to tighten up
made in para 4 of 0.3.1
De Reis's mind 711.46.
My
hav
Lou
necali!
Im
I am
in
open
Seal 46)(a)(i)
ww
bases
a
n
commit on D. her Williams's
If on to prefer pl. discurs with him.
2.(762
9.1.48
Sir T. Lloyd.
How-
The principal objection to the section, though it is not very clearly brought out by our comment in (3), is that the power to arrest applies only if the person in question either has not in fact a permit, or having a permit has in fact failed to comply with any direction given. ever suspiciously that person might be acting, it is unfair and indeed impossible to expect a sentry to know whether either of these conditions is complied with. What the Ordinance should have said, was that the sentry could arrest if he "reasonably suspecte" that the person in question had not a permit or had failed to comply with directions. The objection applies even if the person to be arrested is inside a protected area; but the difficulty is obviously far greater in the case of a person outside whom the sentry suspects of attempting to enter, or of having recently left, the protected place.
On reconsideration, however, I think we should omit a reference to this point, because section 4 (1)(b) refers to Regulation 32 of the Defence
/Regulations
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.