1
3 -
cumstances, it is better to have a police officer disperse a meeting too hastily rather than too tardily. It would be dangerous if police officers hesitated because of doubt about their powers. I believe that the public expect public gatherings to be very carefully controlled and dispersed at the first threatening signs. Certain parts of the trade union movement have caused great anxiety in the past year, and the activities of union officials are potentially most
dangerous in Hong Kong.
Please see my comments on paragraph 12. There Paragraphs 13 and 14. must be no doubt that a police officer can act decisively, if he considers it
necessary.
Section 12(2) perhaps, needs amendment to ensure that a public meeting which has no licence under section 7 is not an unlawful assembly if it is a class of public meeting exempted from the need for a licence under section 7.
I agree that there is a danger that idle spectators may be caught by the phrase "forms or continues to form part of". I am inclined to accept the suggestion that they should be removed and that offences should be committed under section 13(3) only where there is an element of knowledge.
Paragraph 17. It is in practice not difficult for the Commissioner of Police to find out who is the organizer of a public meeting. We do not want to leave room for easy evasion of a prohibition issued under section 15 by the earlier organizer on whom it was served, asserting that he did not tell the later organizer of the prohibition and the latter denying that he knew of it. If he can convince the court of this, then no doubt the penalty would be nominal.
Paragraph 18. "or likely to cause" is intended to import an objective test as to whether or not the conduct is likely to put persons reasonably in fear. There are cases where disorderly persons may not mean to frighten others,
but their conduct is very likely to do so. We can't afford to let that happen
here. However, I think that the insertion of the words "noisy, disorderly or intimidating" might be added before "manner" in the second line of section 18(1).
Paragraph 19. "by such assembly" is intended to cover those cases (not frequent perhaps) where the mere gathering of a number of persons is calculated to provoke others to violence - e.g. a few persons exhibiting in public a man who had been injured, as a way of whipping up disorder.
Paragraph 20. This is a good point and section 18(3) should be amended to make it clear that it only applies to assemblies which became
unlawful assemblies under section 18.
Paragraph 21. Section 19 does make it possible for persons who take no active steps in riotous conduct to be convicted of riot. In practice, as soon as some members of a crowd become unruly, those who do not want to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.