TNAG-2210-FCO40-3170-Future-of-Hong-Kong-political-parties-1991 — Page 122

1991-01-21 10:16

SECURITY BRANCA

832 866 0074

think his using a loudhailer and collecting money would not lead to his prosecution. Though warned against such activity, the police did not normally interfere w.th his

resumed use of loudhailer. On one occasion ir March

1982, and another Occasion in March 1990, he was

severely warned, that he should stop using his

loudhailer otherwise he would be prosecuted. As he

wanted to avoid a confrontation he stopped. He did not

explain what he meant by saying he wanted to avoid 3

confrontation, but it could be that whilst he did not

think he would be

be prosecuted, he did not want any

unpleasantness with the police.

D4's experience in demonstrations and public

processions was limited.

D5 had involved himself in demonstrations

since 1972. Loudhailers were used for making speeches, especially since 1984. His use of

of donation box for

collection

money seemed limited to two CX three

occasions only. He had never been prosecuted for either

of the two activities.

of

Senior police officers who gave evidence could

not recall any prosecutions save for the summons against

the boutique in D'Aguilar Street.

The only conclusion to be drawn from the

evidence is that for well over a decade the police often

issued warnings against the use Of loudhailers And

collection of money without permit but never actually prosecuted any person. Often the warnings were given as

a formality or routine, which can only mean to those

warned that it would not be followed by a prosecution

even if the warning was not heeded.

In those