CONFIDENTIAL
Sent
23rd June, 1969.
25
8
We were, as you can imagine, very pleased indeed to receive your telegram No. 481 about emergency legislation: it is most encouraging that you felt that you could safely take this action. As we see it from here, when the steps to repeal or discontinue
such legislation (as outlined in your Saving Despatch No. 70, in
(2)
6 your letter of 20th February and in your telegram) have all been
taken, the only emergency legislation still in force will be the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations together with the related Advisory Tribunal Rules made thereunder.
2. We have, as you know, raised some points on certain of the items of emergency legislation embodied (or to be embodied) in permanent legislation, in correspondence on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No. 2)
Ordinance, 1968. There is one additional point we would wish to raise with you on the proposals set out in your Saving Despatch No. 70. This concerns Regulation 96 of the Principal Emergency Regulations requiring members of the public to identify themselves to police officers and military personnel.
3. There is no difficulty about conferring on military officers "acting in the course of duty" permanent powers to require people to identify themselves: the circumstances in which a military officer's duty would involve him in checking a civilian's
credentials are strictly limited and defined. But it has been pointed out here that for the purposes of permanent legislation the application to police officers of the words "acting in the course of his duty" does seem to go rather too far. It confers a
much wider power than is normal, e.g. in this country where it is confined to the performance of a police officer's duty to prevent
and detect crime. I understand that during his recent visit to
ہیں
نوط
5.7.69
(vepsen)
Ano
میں
полёт
15.8.69
15/7/69.
24,6,69
Sir David Trench, GCMG.,
MC.
CONFIDENTIAL
8
LO
28
Hong
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.