CO129-616-5 Public Order Ordinance- 1948- proposed amendments 16-3-1949 - 2-6-1949 — Page 2

2

1.

GOV.

desp. No. 45 Conf.

(Ref: (2) on 1948 file)

16.3.49.

The Governor has accepted our suggestion that the provisions of S. 9-12 of the Public Order Ordinance should be reviewed when more settled conditions are restored. Special administrative instructions regarding the use of firearms under these sections will not be issued until the powers contained in them are invoked and will take account of conditions then prevailing. This seems reasonable.

The Governor has submitted for consideration an explanation of the distinction referred to in paragraph 3 of our despatch at (2) on the 1948 file and in the meantime he is deferring amendment of the Ordinance.

It is suggested that in the case of an incursion into a closed area immediate recourse to firearms may be necessary without there being time to reflect and that there should be greater immunity for such action than is provided in S. 9, 11 and 12 of the Ordinance. two weaknesses to this argument:-

There seem to be

(a) the need for swift action may be as great when proceeding under S. 9, 11 and 12 as it could be under S. 10. Eg, the police who in January 1948 went to Kowloon City to evacuate squatters were confronted with a situation in which it was necessary to take quick action involving the use of firearms,

(b) although a police officer may be required to act and perhaps shoot quickly, it is surely not supposed that he does so without at least momentary reflection upon the circumstances? quick thinking would presumably be assisted by the instructions which an officer on duty in a closed area will have been given as to the circumstances which would justify his use of firearms.

Such

I do not think therefore that a very strong case has been made for allowing an officer such immunity from his action in using firearms as is at present provided in S. 10 of the Ordinance and I think we should press for the amendment suggested in our despatch at (2) on the 1948 file.

Sio

BRadpral

11.4.49.

I must say I agree with Mr. Radgold.

worded gins

of

ascente immanity, irrespective

I the facts 1 the cam,

provision is

and

and

I think such

unecessary

not entirely

withat perimer

(Jadd that Jam not