вы
h
are hard for mensager in foalli Cast & Antial tonen.
Прис to my knowledge)
mis Maller
}
ke Balin
31/3
t
the the Comarmed,
X
Homing pegions, Reg 24 (1) says
fl see minutes aboue se Homing pigeons
sand lay post,
or otherwis to
Any
destination....
would not "oothenina" include by Roming pyn?
Ball
3/13
a1
Scanned with CamScanner
M? Hall.
I do not think that reg. 24 covers the point raised by M? Low. 'It is
time that regulation 24(1) the words " or otherwise" would fully justify
a prosecution where homing pigeons are used to convey instinctions for
utilising any means of remot communication, or any document on the
article secretly conveying any information etc.
Raragraph (3) 87 regulation
24 does not, however, make it an offence to keep homing pigeons; it does
not even empower the competent authority to request that honning pigiren
be handed over to such author't, an person as may be specified.
M. de Coman
1/4
4.9
13
Y
à Hong Kong - Deop. 38. refer /// wpm - 17:53:50
with
ponit
I have had
Mi Hale
unutes.
seem
dis cursed
a word
about the
in the preceding
We agree
incongruous,
Part
that it would at this stage,
to Hong Kong this isolated
criticisms of
The Emergency Regulations, is that
(Conncipal) Regulations
Scanned with CamScanner
י
H
d
they
do
not
t
keeping of homing pigeons
It hough
they would
Cheri
com
carrying
k
any
wage
~1
messages, ulgent asulgent
recios di Barlin
have ? we mglis
drop the point,
Ň Hale
should
Sze
(2).
14/4
Mo further comment. Mr Hall will, no doubt, say
1
Whether any Answer
heared to @ Men Back
yle
лам
i
Scanned with CamScanner
I do not think any reply is repiised & there
may be put. J.
нам
17/4 from
Į
ľ
Scanned with CamScanner
||
Mr. Sidebotham
m!
This collection of papers about Hong Kong Emergency Regulations was got
together in connection with the "inquest" on the question why we had not
been informed by the Hong Kong Government of the existence of Emergency
Regulations by means of which the disputed aircraft could be detained in
Hong Kong. The minutes relating to that inquest have now gone on to Sir
T. Lloyd with the relevant "Communications" papers. I do not imagine
that this collection of papers relating to the Emergency Regulations
will be required but it will be as well to get them together for a few
days in case there are.
This win
IIP.
/5th May, 1950.
disposed of
been
from
I had
theme pp
point of vier, there
be dispersed.
Can
M. 18 Hall
Japse. but you should
12/5-
K
In case thom are
JAC
oustanding movie. wammechi with
нов
it offrem & baby that,
wheat [them she may to wanted.
15/5
here
now he put ly
the file retumed to thians
ples
Scanned with CamScanner
(15) /1949 file has
Pps. have
not
been
answered
+
been
in
aire. So
that
mir.
}
1 13/2
1949
file
And
wo-
been
1|
noted.
12.G. Fog. 6/5
To Hong Kong - Saw 499
4 Hong Kong
Hany
Q. H
bons
Kholl
Sec. Dev, 15
Rung - ko Sew 56
5 Hang Rung
16/54.
ells
(5. Hong Kong - See. Hel 652 Ply - wefts)
1 MAY 1350
26550
1650
- 10.6:50.
"
Scanned with CamScanner
1
M' Hell.
I regret that it has taken
collect the mass of pps
some days to
connected with (4) (5) ~(6).
now attach opposite
in which I have
altempted to
summarize
the issues
raised.
N. B.
54496 (enclosed)
May
be wanted urgently
by Pte. Office in
connexim with a
P. Q.
отмет
the 14th June.
J.J. Anderson. 13/6.
7 Memo by Mr Anderson on (4) (5) or(6)
13: Vi:50.
At (15) on the '49 file the Governor was asked for further information
on (a) particular offences for which the death penalty was to be
provided and (b) the alternative form of trial. The answers are at (4).
The "B" enclosures give details of the offences for which death will be
the penalty: they are offences already punishable either with life
imprisonment or with imprisonment for a long term, The "C" enclosures
concern the alternative forms of trial they are summerised in enclosure
C.1 and they will not be introduced unless war is declared or the
Defence Force is called up.
-
In view of the very full explanation in (4) we may signify
non-disallowance in respect of their Emergency Regulations (Amendment)
(No. 2) Ordinance 1949 i. e. (12) on 49 file?
་ །
(5) deals with two issues (a) an extension in the use of corporal
punishment and (b) an amendment to the Emergency Regulations to render
punishable with death the possession of any bomb, grenade, mine or other
apparatus etc. As consideration
of (a) will take time and involves other
Departments I suggest we deal first with the
proposed new Emergency Regulation.
Paragraphs 4 to 7
of Mr. Anderson's Note opposite refer.
The
1
ID (20) on 54496/50 the Governor was informed that "the Secretary of
State had very reluctantly agreed to the introduction in Singapore of an
Emergency Regulation prescribing the death penalty (without an option)
for similar offences. The correspondence is on 58849/2/50 below.
Commissioner General, South East Asia fully supported the Governor of
Singapore in that instance vide (9) and (11). Paragraph 4 of (5)
mentions that the Executive Council made a point that a grenade is
primarily an offensive weapon
Scanned with CamScanner
and when used can cause considerable damage and injury. The Executive
Council's advice to the Governor is given in paragraph 8(1) in paragraph
9 and unless there are legal objections to the new Regulation 116A
(annexure B to (5) as amended by (6)) I think that the Governor and
Executive Council's advice should be accepted.
(After consideration of (4) and the
new Regulation 116A the file should be recirculated to me for further
consideration of the corporal punishment issue).
AfHall
14th June, 1950.
& Minute by Mr Hall on Decell Penalty - Malaya & Hong Kong.
Al
I think the memorandum by the Attorney-General deals fairly with the
points we raised on the Ordinance, and in view of the explanations, and
in particular the contents of the two sets of draft Regulations, we can
now communicate non- disallowance.
On the draft Regulations themselves, the Administration of Justice
Regulations seem reasonable. Regarding the Capital Punishment
Regulations, it is difficult to comment on these, particularly as they
are to meet a situation which has not yet arisen, but as they are
evidently to be kept in reserve for serious disorder, and as the
offences which will be punishable with death are all very serious
offences, perhaps they are not unreasonable. At the same time, I do feel
that legislation in this form, which visits with the death penalty a
mumber of offences mostly simply by reference to other legislation, is
open to criticism, Whether or not it will be really necessary or helpful
to visit the offences themselves with the death penalty is not a matter
on which I feel I can pass judgment; but it seems to me elementary in
the whole project of legislating by Emergency Regulation that
Regulations of this kind should be short and easily understood. Here
anyone will have to look through these various Ordinances to find out
what is punishable with death and what is not. With this method should
be contrasted the contents of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939,
in force in the United Kingdom during the
War
In
in which were enacted in terms the offence (for example, Looting
Regulation 38A) which it was intended to create. any event, surely there
is something wrong as between the Hong Kong Regulations 3 and 7:
Regulation 7 makes breach of many sections of the Malicious Damage
Ordinance, 1865, punishable with death, yet Regulation 3 also makes an
offence against any provision of this Ordinance punishable with death,
but in circumstances specified in Regulation 3.
3.
I have no observations on the proposed Regulation imposing the death
penalty in respect of carrying grenades, etc.
15/6/50
Scanned with CamScanner
|
Mr Hall.
We spoke. Two ifts opposite
Mr Sidelatham
J.J. Anderson.
PC Ree minutes of 14/615/6.
16/6.
for cosm.
Dift "A" is regrafyup non disallowmore of the timergency Rez (sund)
(2) Aud 1948 - (12) a 49 file. Mr Dale's comments on
-
draft Copictal Punishment Regs - "B" calmers to (4) - Me Pole's minute
of 15/6) have been included in the reply.
the
(parne zuf
Dft "B" is the reply to (5) (6) purposing regulation 116A imporing
the dealth penalty
He death penalty in respect of camping gornades ete. for sieniler
offences have already ben prescribed in Malaya & Singapore.
Walall 16/6.
|
Mr. Paskin.
You will recollect your minute of 11th May and subsequent minutes on
54496/50 below, on the Emergency Regula- tions in Hong Kong which
renders persons in possession of arms in certain circumstances, and
persons who unlawfully carry arms liable to imprisonment for life. As
you there noted there was much more rigorous legislation in operation in
Malaya, and recently introduced in Singapore which makes the death
penalty for possession of arms etc. mandatory.
In this file we have received two important despatches one at (4) which
is dealt with in draft 'A'. That draft informs the Governor that the
power of disallowance will not be exercised in respect of the ordinance
at (12) on the 1949 file amending the Emergency Regulations Ordinance of
1922. I agree with the view which Mr. Dale has expressed in the first
paragraph of his minute of 15/6 in the light of the explanations
furnished by the Attorney-General of Hong Kong in the memorandum
enclosed with No. (4).
The second and subsequent paragraphs of draft 'A' deal with emergency
regulations to be made thereunder, especially the draft capital
punishment regulations. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Attorney-General's
memorandum behind No.4. should be read in this connection. Draft 'A'
makes it clear that the Secretary of State understands that the
regulations will in fact be kept in reserve for times of serious
disorder, and on that understanding the draft comments only on the form
at present of these regulations which, so far as the capital punishment
regulations are concerned, are unwieldy and their content difficult to
ascertain, but I agree with Mr. Dale's view at 'A' in paragraph 2 of his
minute.
A
Draft 'B' approves the amendment to the existing
/Emergency
Scanned with CamScanner
XI
у
Emergency Regulations by a new regulation 116.A. (for the text of this
see annexure 'p' to No. (5)) which would impose the death penalty on
persons committing offences in the matter of possession and use of arms,
but would make the consent of the Attorney-General necessary before a
prosecution under the regulations could be instituted. This, as I see
it, is based on corres- ponding legislation in Malaya and Singapore
which made the possession of a grenade a capital offence (see paragraph
4 of No. (5)). Mr. Dale has no observations on this particular point,
but as you paid in No. (20) on 54496/50, the Secretary of State would
wish to be consulted on such a proposal before the Governor committed
himself to its introduction. The Governor now wishes to
enact regulations of this nature to make provision/ting kay but with the
safeguard that prosecutions/cannot be
instituted except with the consent of the Attorney-Genera).
It is for decision whether he should be permitted to do so, and you may
think that we should discuss thio matter with him while he is in London
before the papers are submitted to higher authority.
The savingram at (5) also makes proposals for the employment to a
greater extent of the use of corporal punishment on conviction for
possession of arms though unaccompanied by any other offence, e.g.
robbery. This will require very careful consideration and it is proposed
to examine it separately. I agree with this course since, as you know,
the high incidence in Hong Kong of sentences for whipping die has
recently been 'under fire' by the Social Service Departments, and there
has also been a recent Parliamentary Question which has led to the dis-
closure of the unsatisfactory position in Hong Kong in this matter in
the House of Commons. I have also seen
at least one press extract in the matter.
The drafts are now submitted with a view to special conson. of the point
at 'X' above, the ward for pornôt documen with thin for. The fifis aru
Imaikinu Biolo fun (Ext stand houd
1
After actum papersshould
In receiculated centy fo
JY.
IBS
21. 6. 50
Notes of the Meeting with the Governor of
held at 2.30pm on 28th June 1950.
p.mon
Hong Kong
Im Paskin
An amended copy
Jesterday's meeting is at try of the note
(9).
AI. Daniclou A 29/4/50
Scanned with CamScanner
The communications from Hong Kong at Nos. 4 & 5 on this file raise a
number of important issues which the Secretary of State will no doubt
wish to discuss with the Governor while he is here. Some of them are
rather troublesome issues and I am afraid that it has not been possible
for the departmental discussions with the Governor to be completed in
time for the Secretary of State to study the papers before his meeting
with the Governor tomorrow. A further meeting between the Secretary of
Stato and the Governar has accordingly been arranged, to deal with these
particular matters at 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday 4th July.
It will I think now be convenient for me to summarise these various
issues in turn
(A) The form of the Emergency Legislation in operation
in Hong Kong.
In this country, the power to issue Emergency Regulations derives from
an Act of Parliament which requires the declaration of a "state of
emergency" before the Emergency Regulations can be promulgated; and the
Emergency Regulations normally cease to operate when the proclamation of
the state of emergency is repealed. If Hong Kong had wished to follow a
similar course(like other Colonial Covernments could have done so under
the powers conferred by the Emergency Powers Order-in-Council 1939. But
in fact Hong Kong has preferred to rely on a local Ordinance of 1922
which confers power to make Emergency Regulations without first
declaring a state of emergency. Moreover, in Hong Kong the Emergency
Regulations remain in operation until specifically repealed (i.e. they
do not, as in the United Kingdom, automatically come to an end since, no
state of emergency having been proclaimed, there is equally no
proclamation of the ending of the state of emergency). A further feature
of the Hong Kong system is that a whole body of Emergency Regulations
have been promulgated (and even added to from time to time), but have
not been brought into operation as a whole.. Instead, only those
perticular Regulations which are required for some specific purpose are
brought into operation as and when required. For example after the bomb
outrages which occurred a few weeks ago, the Emergency Regulations
relating to the possession or carrying of "arms" were brought into
operation.
The objections which were felt to this procedure were put to the
Governor in the despatch of the 1st January at No. 15 on 14237/15/49, to
which the Governor has now replied in his despatch at 1o. 4 on this
file. explanations are given in rather voluminous memoranda by the
Attorney-General but briefly, can be summarised as follows:-
The
The circumstances in Hong Kong are peculiar in that some particular ",
emergency" situation may arise at any time without the occurrence of a
general state of emergency such as occurs on the outbreak of a war, and
it is desirable that there should be powers to deal with a sudden
emergency situation of some particular kind.
If the Emergency Regulations designed to
deal with such a particular situation could only be brought into
operation after the declaration of a general state of emergency, it
would be most unfortunate because the local Chinese population is so
sensitive that the declaration of "emergency" would create widespread
alarm and despondency.
Moreover, it is unnecessary because, as I have said, in the
circumstances of Hong Kong
/ a
!
Scanned with CamScanner
}
a localised or particularised state of emergency can arise and it is
only necessary to bring into operation a limited specified body of
Emergency Regulations to deal with it. Arther advantage of the Hong Kong
system, in the peculiar local circumstances, is that the mere existence
of a published body of Emergency Regulations, which can be brought into
operation piecemeal as required, has itself a steadying effect on the
Chinese population in Hong Kong.
A
The advantages of this system were in fact recognised in the course of
the discussions about the detained aircraft when it was recognised as
fortunate that (if in fact wo had decided so to proceed) this situation
could have been dealt with under Emergency Regulations without declaring
a general state of emergency.
In the circumstances it is submitted that the Hong Kong system is
justified in the special local conditions.
(B) Death Penalty in very exceptional circumstances.
Amongst the documents submitted with No. 4 is a draft Regulation
designed to impose the death penalty for a variety of offences for which
that penalty is not prescribed in ordinary circumstances either in
current legislation or in others of the Emergency Regulations. These
Regulations would only be promulgated in the event of an extre emergency
and in the event of the penalty prescribed in the existing Emergency
Regulations not having been proved effective, and would apply the death
penalty to offences committed in particular circumstances (or places)
where it is generally recognised as an appropriato measure in such
circumstances, e.g. looting of premises destroyed in an enemy attack
this penalty was in fact introduced for this offence in the United
Kingdom in the last war though I am not sure that it was ever enforced.
These draft Regulations have been examined by the Legal Advisers who
sees nothing to criticise in them except that, proceeding as they do "by
reference" it would be possible for a person to commit an offence
punishable by death without being aware that he was incurring that
penalty. As in the case of similar Regulations recently introduced in
Singapore, therefore, it is proposed to ask the Governor to see that the
offences punishable by death are in fact specified so that all may be
aware of them.
(c)
Mandatory death penalty for possession of bombs and similar weapons.
When, recently, the Governor of Singapore wished to introduce the
mandatory death penalty for the mere possession of arms, the Secretary
of State at first demurred on the ground that insufficient reason had
been adduced by the Government of Singapore to justify this measure,
even though it had been in operation in the Federation of Malaya for a
considerable time. As in Hong Kong, the Singapore proposal was put
forward following a series of grenade throwing incidents. It was
pointedoout at the time that the real trouble in Singapore was that the
police had not in fact been successful in arresting the persons
responsible for these incidents and it did not seem therefore that the
mere
introduction of a mandatory death penalty would materiallyouter)
affect improve the situation. It was ever suggested that the
introduction of this penalty might indeed operate to make
it even more difficult than before for the police to
/ apprehend
Scanned with CamScanner
flogging
relatively
apprehend persons guilty of this offence. To these reasons, Fr. Chinn in
our discussion with the Governor yesterday
addal
that his experience in Palestine had convinced him that penalties of
this kind were quite ineffective as a deterrent. It appeared however
that his principal for this view was that the fanatical terrorist who is
a terrorist because of his convictions would not be deterred by the
threat of any punishment. Against this however it was pointed out by the
Governor that this kind of terroriam has not yet emerged in Hong Kong.
The kind of person at whom his proposal is aimed is not a person who is
actuated by any "idealistic" motives but is of the ordinary tough
criminal type living by his wits (which includes threats and
intimidation) for whose activities present conditions in Hong Kong offer
full scope. The Governor himself is quite satisfied that the threat of
the mandatory death penalty would deter persons of this kind.
By comparison with the Regulations recently introduced in Singapore it
is also pointed out that, in Hong Kong, it is proposed that the
mandatory death penalty should be imposed only for the possession of
bombs and similar weapons, the possession of which can only be for
terrorist purposes. The proposed penalty for the illegal possession of
other arms is imprisonment or flogging (as to which see below).
Koreover, by contrast with the Singapore Regulations, the draft
Regulation which it is proposed to introduce in Hong Kong contains a
safeguard that no prosecution under the Regulations should be instituted
except with the consent of the Attorney-General. Such consent would of
course Hot shy be given in a case where, in his opinion, the offence did
not merit the death penalty but could be dealt with under other laws.
Having regard to the fact that Hong Kong is now flooded with weapons of
this character and that there are large numbers of very dangerous
characters amongst the Chinese who have made their way into, the Colony,
it is sub- mitted that the Governor's proposal is justified.
(D) Flogging.
The Governor has proposed that flogging (in addition to imprisonment)
should now be introduced as a punishment for the possession of arms,
other than those of a kind for which it is proposed to prescribe the
death penalty (as to which see above). The arguments for and against the
introduction of this kind of offence are very similar to those adduced
for or against the mandatory death penalty discussed under (C) above.
But, from the point of view of the Secretary of State, the proposal
comes forward at a particularly inspportune time in that (a) corporal
punishment has now been abolished in the United Kingdom and there is a
circular despatch on the stocks asking Colonial Governments to follow
suit, and (b) the incidence of corporal punishment in Hong Kong (mainly
the originstà minor punishment of caning) has recently come under very
unfavourable comment in the treatment of the Offenders Sub-Committee of
the Social Welfare Advisory Committee whose comments and suggestions on
12755/17/50 below it is not proposed to put to Hong Kong. Advantage was
accordingly taken of the discussion with the Governor yesterday to
discuss all these various aspects of corporal punishment in Hong Kong.
As regards the very large number of cases in which cạning is now
resorted to (amounting to about 4,500 cases a year) the Governor is
frankly dubious whether the suggestion of the Advisory Committee thatthe
use of this punishment should be
discontinued
Scanned with CamScanner
I
discontinued for an experimental period of six months) will have any
beneficial effect. But he does not wish to demur to the proposal being
submitted to the 0.A.G. for consideration in consultation with the
Commissioner of Police and other authorities in Hong Kong. There is not
therefore any great need for the Secretary of State's time to be taken
up with discussion of that issuUO. There therefore remains only the
question of flogging as a punishment for the possession of arms.
As to this, after having heard all that Mr. Chinn had to see on the
other side, the Governor remains convinced that the introduction of this
penalty would be an effective deterrent.
In this connection he has pointed out that flogging is already a
permissible punishment under the existing laws of the Colony but that it
has not in fact been used for a considerable time (though even now the
judges of the Supreme Court are increasingly prescribing caning as part
of the penalty for the illegal possession of
Parme
What the Governor is actually proposing is that for an experimental
period, the Supreme Court should be authorised to prescribe flogging for
this offence when the person is charged under the ordinary law of the
Colony. Experience of this experiment shows that the use of this penalty
becomes an effective deterrent, the Governar proposes that this penalty
should also be prescribed under the Emergency Regulations and that
Magistratos (as well as the Supreme Court) should be empowered to impose
it.
As in the case of the proposal for the introduction of the death penalty
for possession of grenades etc. it is submitted that the Governor has
made out a sufficient case for the Secretary of State to authorise him
to reintroduce flogging for the possession of other kinds of
arms.
The drafts which had been prepared on this file will have to be
reconsidered in the light of the Secretary of State's commanden
decisions (c)
جوو؟
June, 1950.
S..
This is to be discussed with
the Swennin
Tuesday afternom.
Meanwhile I don't think I
wind and to In Paskuis
full minte
6.1130/6
very
Scanned with CamScanner
10 Mate of dearensen
благинка
Sof 51
4/7/50.
I attach at (10) notes of the meeting held in the Secretary of State'a
room on the 4th July, when the despatch at (4) and the Savingram at (5)
were discursed. In the light of these discussions I have revised the
drafts which were originally put up.
Hotell
7th July, 1950.
I have disened with de
V
Wh
Dasman
we supert Subasining for
las para ofea draft.
The para.
mor
it
Stand
im opinion,
iL
eleor
are regard
the power armed for
Exhaardmity.
the dealerchion
Emenjensy· !!
vit
A
да
thai-
авто помали
864
I prefer in Chip's sublimukai
رمس
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.