TNAG-0194-FCO40-230-Emergency-legislation-and-Public-Order-ordinance-discussions-1969 — Page 133

Flag A

5.

The attached draft Bill (which is the one referred to in paragraph 1 above) is the result of these consultations. It should be viewed from two aspects; first as regards the extent to which it purports to incorporate emergency legislation into the permanent law; and second from the point of view of the extent to which it meets the various criticisms which have been levelled at the principal Ordinance.

6. As regards the first of these considerations, the only additional emergency legislation which has been included in the draft Bill relates to clause 26 thereof. This is designed to incorporate into the principal Ordinance, Emergency (Principal) Regulation 113 which makes it an offence for any person to obstruct any member of the Naval, Military or Air Forces or any Police Officer, acting in the course of their duty. I hardly think that this clause is likely to give rise to any difficulty. The Bill is also concerned with amending certain sections of the principal Ordinance which had been incorporated into the principal Ordinance from emergency legislation. The only clause of the Bill which is worth mentioning in this connexion is clause 15 which repeals, replaces and ameliorates section 27 of the principal Ordinance concerning intimidation and intimidating assemblies.

7.

As regards "Justice's" criticisms of the principal Ordinance, these are met to a very consider- able extent by the draft Bill. There are very few outstanding points remaining and of these the following are the main ones:

(1)

(2)

Section 7 of the Ordinance and Clause 4 of the Bill:

Control over funeral processions presents a particular problem in the circumstances of Hong Kong. However, it is considered that the powers conferred on the Commissioner of Police by section 7(4) are too wide in relation to funeral processions;

Section 11(2) of the Ordinance and Clause 6 of the Bill:

This concerns the question whether a Police Officer, when exercising his powers of preventing the holding of or dispersing public gatherings or meetings, should be able to do so "if the same is causing or in his opinion likely to cause or lead to a breach of the peace."

or whether he should only do so:

"if he reasonably believes that the same is likely to cause or lead to a breach of the peace."

The Governor has already accepted a similar amendment to section 3 of the Ordinance (which relates to Police powers to prohibit the display of flags and emblems) and we can see no difference in principle between the two sections. Nor is it considered that it would in any way hamstring a Police Officer (who has to be of the rank of Inspector or above) if he were required to be reasonably satisfied that the exercise of his powers under the section was necessary before he exercised these powers.

/(3)