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

3

I dealing with the type 1

character

+ m

This minute

în. Sidebstem refers

9 157.448)

I think

whe shold repeat me

rection be brought into

regnest

that this

live with

the other

Thre

V.wolenn

2414

We are now given a reason and must consider whether it is a good one. It may be, but this despatch is far from sufficiently informative to convince me that the reason is adequate. It was not apparent from the objects and reasons, and is not apparent now, in what circumstances respectively sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 are to be used; and it is not clear thal, as seems to be implied by this despatch, section 10 is intended to deal with a more serious situation than the other three sections. Even if that is the case, I do not understand why there should be more imminent danger from an incursion into an area which has been closed by Governor's order than from, say, an organised breach of curfew or vident resistance to an evacuation order.

In any event, it appears to me that no one should be authorised to use firearms except with proper sense of responsibility, and the difference between section 10 and the other three sections might well lead to recklessness. From this point of view it would perhaps have been better for sections 9, 11 and 12 to use the same wording as sec. 10, than for the latter to relax in this pointed fashion the degree of care required in the other cases.

I agree that we must certainly go back to Hong Kong in this matter.

5/5/1949.

Ithrück

m

i nowsher back but in the present scheat it Whars us I like think looduse

Ishall be grateful

of the math without delay guidly wome

مسح الله

despelett

to

1/ adft may to put rips he

anthrity.