19.
Mr. Moreton
I agree with the draft brief subject to the following comments
on paragraph 7.
2. It seems to me that the distinction drawn between (1) and (2) in paragraph 7 is largely unreal; in fact I cannot see that really there is one. Wong has contravened S.55(n) of the Education
Ordinance. This reads :-
"Any person who
•
;
(n) enters or remains upon or in any premises or building
in contravention of Section 50
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine of $5000 and to imprisonment for two years."
Section 50 reads :-
"Where the registration of a school has been cancelled
no teacher or pupil of the school shall save with the permission in writing of the Director, thereafter enter or remain upon or in the premises in which the school was operated."
3. The Governor is prepared, as provided in the law, to allow Wong reasonable access to the school as the proprietor of the premises, He is not prepared to tolerate visits of such frequency as might imply that Wong takes part in the running of the school now occupying those premises. The law is specifically designed to prevent this happening. One might turn a blind eye to breaches of the law if they were not so frequent and could be passed off as being in the legitimate pursuit of his role as owner of the premises.
But one could hardly do so if the visits were (say) daily or thrice weekly with the strong implication that their purpose was the illegitimate one of taking part in the conduct of the new school. For my part I would, in such circumstances, find the argument in (2) "convincing" But in assessing to what extent it should play a part in reaching a
/ decision
•
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.