CO129-616-5 Public Order Ordinance- 1948- proposed amendments 16-3-1949 - 2-6-1949 — Page 8

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All

other three Sections marks in somewhat pointed

fashion the relaxation in the degree of

care required in the other three cases

and it appears to me may well lead to

recklessness,

4. In view however of recent events

in China and resulting psychological

repercussions in Hong Kong I realise that

to amend Section 10 now might have a bad

effect on public morale and I therefore

wish to press withdraw the request for such amendment

ear

do no

made in my despatch No. 33 of the 7th February.

I nevertheless trust that the earliest when

presents itself.

suitable opportunity will be taken of

wil I amended amending the Ordinance/ on this point.

I have, etc.

any.

subput further comment Jou may

math in

wish to

amplifications of

Jou des patar uncha mpe,

пря

Z

00

Page

Page

No 45.

(47/3231/48S)

CONFIDENTIAL.

Answi125

ch

GOVERNMENT HOUSE,

HONG KONG.

16 March, 1949.

Sir,

I have the honour to refer to your confidential

(2) 48 despatch No. 33 of 7th February, 1949, concerning the Public

on

Order Ordinance, 1948.

2.

I note that you do not in present circumstances press for the deletion of the reference to firearms in Sections 9,10,11 and 12 of the Ordinance. In accordance with your request, this matter will be reviewed when more settled condi- tions are restored. In the meantime it does not appear to be necessary to issue special instructions to the Police on the subject of the use of firearms. Instructions already exist regarding the use of arms in normal circumstances, and any special instructions regarding their use under the sections in question will be given when an order is made by me making any or all of the sections operative, because such instructions must necessarily depend upon conditions at the time when the powers are invoked.

3.

I regret that the reason for the distinction referred to in your third paragraph was not made clear. The reason for this distinction is that it is felt that greater immunity should be afforded to an Officer of Police, or member of His Majesty's Forces taking action in a "closed area" (Section 10 of the Ordinance) than in the case of the erforce- ment of curfew ( Section 9), the enforcement of evacuation (Section 11) or the prohibition of movement (Section 12).

In a case of breach of curfew or of an order to evacuate, or of an order prohibiting movement, an Officer of Police or member of

.. Forces will ordinarily have time to reflect and could reasonably be required to justify his action in use of firearms; but in the case of incursion into a closed area, the danger may well be of an immediate and serious nature demanding immediate recourse to the use of firearms. In these circumstances it is felt that greater immunity for the use of firearms should be afforded. I should be grateful if the foregoing explanation may receive consideration. In the meanwhile I am deferring action to secure amendment of the Ordinance as suggested.

I

the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient, humble servant,

Mahantham.

COVE

THE RIGHT ONOURABLE

A. CREECH JONES, M.P.

P

age 9

age 9

9

P

1949

54324/41

1

P

Dana 10

10

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.