CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948 — Page 59

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If Regulation No. 32 is no longer in force, this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)/