TNAG-0194-FCO40-230-Emergency-legislation-and-Public-Order-ordinance-discussions-1969 — Page 139

Mr. Gaminara

Hong Kong Dept.

K. 247

Reference...

112.

Mr. Cruchley, before he went on leave, asked me to deal with these papers as it was I who dealt with the

previously.

2. I have the following comments to make on the Bill and the connected paper

(1) Although the Attorney-General had agreed, in his note on Justice's comments, that the definition of "offensive weapon" should be amended, in fact it has not been amended in this draft Bill. The reasons for not amending it are given in paragraph 3 of the comments on the Bill and seem to me to be convincing. Therefore I suggest that we should agree to the definition of "offensive weapon" not being amended.

(2) Clause 7 has been amended in relation to funeral

processions. The clause now provides that in the case of funeral processions the application for a licence must be made two days before the procession; and an actual funeral has been excluded from the provisions of the clause dealing with public meetings. These provisions now presuppose that it would always be possible to apply for a licence to hold a funeral procession

two days before the procession. I would have thought this a doubtful presumption. Further it seems to me that the powers given to the Commissioner of Police under clause 7(4) to refuse

a licence are far too wide and some of the grounds on which a

licence may be refused are not appropriate in the case of funeral processions. I agree that, particularly in a place like Hong Kong, pretty strict control is required over funeral processions but I am still of the view that clause 7 does not provide the appropriate control. I recommend that the Governor be asked to have this question reviewed it is for the Hong

Kong Government to suggest a formula and not for us I think.

(3) Although the Bill includes an amendment to section 3(1),

substituting for the phrase "in the opinion of such police

officer" the phrase "if such police officer reasonably believes",

nevertheless the Attorney General does not wish to make a similar amendment in respect of section 11(2); and he gives the same

reasons on which he originally grounded his objection to making the amendment to section 3(1). It seems to me that there is no distinction in principle between section 3(1) and section 11(2). Perhaps you would consider consulting the Secretary of State's

Police Adviser to see if he agrees with the views expressed by the Hong Kong Commissioner of Police.

/ (4)