TNAG-1364-FCO40-1810-Hong-Kong-Hansard-reports-and-minutes-of-the-meetings-of-the-1986 — Page 113

Supplementary to question No. 9

in the LegCo Meeting on 4.12.85

Mr. Peter Wong:- Sir, first of all I would like to thank the

Attorney General for his very clear and lengthy answer and I would

say that I am quite

satisfied with it. However, it appears

to me that the Attorney General in paragraph 2 touches upon

sub-section 1 of the loitering prevision; in paragraph 3 it touches

upon sub-section 2. It appears that he has not touched upon

sub-section 3. Sir, with your permission, may I read out sub-section 3 which is not too long so that I may ask a meaningful supplementary. /sub-section 3 of section 160 reads as follows: "If any person

loiters in a public place or in the common part of any building

and his presence there, either alone or with others, causes any

person reasonably to be concerned for his safety or well-being, he

(that is the loiterer), shall be guilty of an offence and shall be

liable on conviction to imprisonment for two years." Sir, may I

ask the Attorney General to comment on this particular sub-section

along the lines posed in my original question and secondly, to

inform this Council whe ther Government would be prepared to take

another look at this sub-section with a view either to deleting it

altogether or to amending it so that it will be more objective and

less subjective.

The Attorney General:- Sir, I was not previously aware of any critical

pressures that were directed to the operation of this particular

sub-section of the section. I would not expect magistrates to convict

unless they were satisfied that on an objective view of the facts

that was good cause for those others to be concerned, I am sure

in the days when Mr. Peter Wong was in the magistrate

court making