of 9.1
this
E
which
reasonning
Cont
referring
the AG.
cases
J.5. Hahlmei
(0.1
I
6
1
E
P
7
Mr. Paskir
Peskin.
1011
You should be aware of the fact that the question whether the Emergency
Regulations Ordinance in Hong Kong is ultra vires, and whether, in
particular, Regulation 116A was ultra vires the enabling Ordinance, is
coming before the Full Court in Hong Kong.
The point was considered at an earlier stage by Mr. Dale (see X of Mr.
Anderson's minute above) and his view, with which Sir L. Gibson agrees,
is that the Ordinance is intra vires and that it is almost inconceivable
that the Court will hold the Regulation to be ultra vires.
The Governor has, however, asked for our comments and it is proposed to
give them as in draft herewith with which I agree.
JB S
10. 1. 1952.
2 Gov. Hong Hong tet Roy1 Secret
Hougtong
3 Hong Kay - bar. 115
Х
nn Hall & Mr. Hopkinson to see (3).
vfros 14/2
11.1.52.
15/1/52.
12h
+ Legal library note);
5
M. Hopkinsa
file.
telus
H m (20) +(12) a 14237/15/51 below & (3) in this
The position about the to mergency (Requenction) Regs 1949
does not seen
entirely satisfactory
of the regs nomin
нер
in force while in others identical regs of the Emerging (Princips)
Legs free also ben bright its force,
If Inver
you
on
satisfied, we one
put this boys
Hall 4/2
Ting Front
на
Hay (3) hus wiser comequent und Rushford's minute at (20) file & I think
he should
મ
BU
M
the 1951
see this therefore
J
Latony Segel
15/3
The will however be 15th March.
you
Can
warange
brought wh wh
H-4453
J.
8
until the
awszy I shall be glad
glud if
for this to be
then, for his consideration
5. Hopkinson's
22.2.52
Please bring up to M. Rushford
as in M. Hopkinson's minute above.
Ave
To retain lying
To wote, wide s pl. when was. Rundfod
4/2
ther's wing
wing wh
109
y
To me (3) mil Biplasm
ly
**
r!
ить
6/3
Lan
"REN.4/2.25/2.
Hony Kay Legal Dift Neo/st.
Hasi
With
file, would
on which
regund
200/800/12
(rens ↳ LEG 48/134/01 ·
to
oh
15/3
23/2
4/3/5
e the letter offerte,
is 149
an the
you plene fit up the file (54126/13),
to which reference
54126/13/50
is made in the letten?
th Hopkinsm
J. &. Hafkammar
13·3.
52
The nef should be item 1097/54/20/18/50
5 Haytay - Susp. 391 Ser
My Hoptonton.
3/3/52.
I would be grateful for you
~·(4) 45),
Ellall
2175,
Ks. Claud
137
1
};
9
m?
m2 Hall
With refenuce
* (3)
Į
адчи
that
the
position
th
about
Reas,1949
E mugene (Requeritian) Reas, 1949.
not
entirely satur factory
|
is
should
have
thought
나
wohls
ہنا
bette
Lohen
Emugency (Principal)
Ридо
Vi
id intre al
fum
hur
hought
istí
force
expressly
rothe
Е пидму
(Requisitiri ) Regs
списный,
So
k get
them
te
Aut
1
way
avrid
anfusion
Ir might
thami
£ HK
worth
lễ tình
تا
suggest
|?
Senni - efficically)
then
вид
though
new
jom. ta
point
'Y IK
has
Ome
heom
ट्र
wirkj
Кир
کچھ
kingcum
Legal
(Requisitm) Regs
Library
Mudany
to see
(3)
in
ada
k
Wit
position
ہا
10
Win
пришлось
(+)
ans
M'
Hopkinso
ท
likely
*k
Leave
until
Earle
y you
think
thee
I will
V
any
ingeniy
attempt
deal
wit
Tunin
but
the erase
think
ثل
Whils
ine
belm
il
th
приме
xlumā
thin
Sany
April
15th
buat
ke
Madhy
considu
thum
W
he
in famili
with
The
carli
matter.
обедно
(3
Panhay
A
t
mean time
статист
oth-
Dents
(if any)?
A.R. Rushyos
26.3.52
11
Ti L.
L. Gibson
1. Please
Sen (5)
O
the file. You will see
at pan 8 B. 88.
that
new
draft Reg. 116 has been
submitted for afferoval
+
at para 9
рига 9 се
ر
have been
9
not
arked to make "constructive
suggestions" for improving
improving it's foren.
sme however whether
the creation
в
new
offence
th
possession of
cache
arsenal
→
good idea
anyway
of present
drafted. As is
it
is admitted in kma. 9,
define these
seems very difficult to definie
terms. Moreover I notice thouf neither
the UK., now
iin
malaya, where posesions of
is furnished by deaths,
Sunder offence.
Para (3) of the
is
there
any?
new draft regulations
that
seems to be open to objections in thub
it would
Seem
to afbly
even
to
possession of
rober
single firearm. For are
grenade would "constitute a
serious threat to the lives
of members of
the commmity if it fell into the posunion
of persons profmed t
it in th
execution of crimes of violence?
that the only fe
would be
of seems
to
definite way
to
the word 'cache'
Υ
Lebine it
of doing it
Gd
more
being
firemms
collection of two ai
six (?) a
mon frères
of
ammunition
explosive substance.
But Hong Kong has apparently heady
dismissed
the
iden
of defining in
terms of
Whe
umbers.
j
it seems to
to rebly
ine
12
In consequence
that the only solution
that as
CA
it soms is impossible to dicht
clause it seems better
Satisfactory
J
to drop the idea of creating this new offence. They will then have to
decide
to retain the death penallig
Metter
for possession of
2. The
سلية
arms
draft Regulation does
not seem to have been drafted
i
well
very to
гово
use
the Arms
it also
seems confrening
deg 116 - to
two separate enactments
- Ammunition Audie
deal with the
the same
However it is of the office
g
same type of offence. not usually the practice
to examine
office to
of subordinate legislaken.
%
I think
suggestion made
we
+
criticise the drafting
approve The
If
in hamn. I of (5). It
seems very molikely that
any attempt will
be made to declare invalid sentences
imposed under the Awns & Ammunition Ordce.
J. E. Hoffman
Action is being onfe helite with the (+) while old office precedents
of 1966 * 19%G
13
}
Mr. Hopkinson,
I entirely agree with your comments on a new Regulation 116(3). The Hong
Kong despatch lays emphasis on the test that the quantity and character
of the arms etc., must be such as to constitute a serious threat to the
lives of members of the community if they fell into the possession of
persons prepared to use the same in the execution of crimes of violence,
but, as you say, this is clearly no test at all since a single fire arm
of a lethal character would obviously constitute such a threat.
2.
I also agree with you that we can approve the suggestion made in
paragraph 11 of the despatch.
3.
While we do not usually comment on the drafting of subsidiary
legislation I think it is rather difficult to pass paragraphs (4)and(5)
of the new Regulation 116 without comment in view of the fact that the
Regulations have been expressly sub- mitted to us in draft. I think
therefore that we should point out that -
4.
(a) the opening words of paragraph(4)seem
unnecessary in view of the terms of section 2(4) of the Ordinance;
(8) the reference in the proviso to paragraph(4)
to imitation fire arms is probably
(c)
(a)
unnecessary but, if a reference to this point is thought desirable, it
should be covered by a substantive provision and not by a proviso;
the reference to possession with lawful authority in the proviso to
paragraph(4) seems clearly unnecessary because the earlier provisions of
the Regulation limit the offence to possession without lawful authority;
sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph(5) seems unnecessary since "use" clearly
includes use for intimidation and use for a lawful purpose would not in
any event be an offence.
While there is some force in your suggestion that it would be confusing
to use two separate pieces of legislation (i.e. the Arms and Ammunition
Ordinance and Regulation 116) to deal with the same type of offence, I
can see a possible reason for the Hong Kong proposal and I do not think
we need comment on the point.
Nor Hall
(Sip Leslie Gibson) 24th April, 1952.
In connection
в.
25.3, please see Sie R. Gibson's minte
with
yem
requent of
alove
& mine of 23.4, with seference to
(5)
the file.
I fear that action
on (4)
is still delayed, while the Balans,
is trying
trying to obtain
registry old office the subject.
Mr Bunce,
Some
office precedents of 1916 +1926mm
J. E. Hofkamen Хорватой
25.4.52
krch 2 to (8) is a
proposed
of Liz 116 A whit is was
by 116 in substitution of
cantinued in force for a further pisod
of 6 months w.e.f. 19*Oct 1951 by (17) m 14237/15/5!,'
I
As it comes te death penalty
it
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.