TNAG-0195-FCO40-231-Emergency-regulations-and-orders-1969 — Page 30

precedent in U.K. legislation in cases where there is no question

of a state of emergency. Of course in the U.K. there are

statutory powers to control the entry and departure of ships and

aircraft, but those powers of control rest upon factors relating

to safety, etc. and not upon circumstances which are dependent on

the view of an individual that the restriction is necessary or

expedient in the public interest. I do not think therefore that

we are likely to find any comparable United Kingdom legislation.

On the question of whether, despite this, Hong Kong should

nevertheless proceed to enact comparable legislation, it seems to

me that a distinction should be drawn between two sets of

circumstances.

The first is statutory provision which restricts

or prohibits the entry of ships or aircraft into Hong Kong, and

makes it an offence if a person contravenes the prohibition.

Secondly provisions which confer powers to detain vessels,

aircraft and vehicles and persons on boa

2

of those, in particular

board of

I think the Hong Kong Government

the power to detain such persons.

could say reasonably that legislation on the lines of regulation 50

is not objectionable. I think however it would be more difficult

to defend permanent legislation on the lines of regulation 51.

A compromise solution might be legislation to the effect that if a

ship or aircraft entered contrary to the first group of

restrictions (regulation 50) the ship or aircraft could be

arrested, as also any persons on that ship or aircraft, and be

sent out of Hong Kong and in the case of persons, deported from

Hong Kong. The provisions in the existing regulation 51 are

essentially of an emergency nature.

Table B.

Item (2). I do not know of any comparable provision in

United Kingdom law. In this a un try a police officer has power

to question a person to ascertain his name and address if that

information is required by the police officer for the prevention

or the detection of crime.

Regulation 96, which is the provision

concerned in this case, requires a person to disclose his correct

name

Page 30Page 31