form of crisis, the C.P. may authorise all Police and
Military personnel to take names and addresses anywhere in the Colony
for a limited period, say one week.
I would like the Committee to meet to discuss this
proposal, with particular reference to the practicalities of the
situation and to the involvement of military personnel. May I suggest
that the Defence Secretary discusses this with H.Q. Land Forces. The
idea that the C.P. should give the Colony wide authorisation is not
intended to deprive the appropriate military Commander of a like
responsibility, but it seems appropriate in view of the POL/MIL
organisation that has been established, to vest this statutory in a
single authority; and since this i essentially a civil matter the C.P.
seems the obvious authority. But above all let us have no delays and
awkwardnesses occasioned
by the raffling of feathers.
power
c.c. C.P. (Mr. C.Y. SZE-TO).
Law Draftsman
Graham Queath.
(G.R. Sneath)
Solicitor General
GRS/mej:
G.F. 73
0000733
CONFIDENTIAL
From
Ref. (66) in
Tel. No.
Date
Commissioner of Police
CID/CON/15/4
234011 Ext.259
4th October, 1968
MEMO
To Hon. Attorney General
Your Ref (46) in AGC_12/,/125/6]
dated
30.9.68.
Review of Emergency Legislation
I have examined the proposed new draft in Para.5 of the above
quoted memo and am of the opinion that there could still be occasions
when officers of Inspectorate rank or above may not be available or
present to order the taking of names, etc. I doubt the practicability of
limiting the power in given circumstances to officers of certain ranks.
In any event it is doubtful whether this limitation would make the power
any more acceptable to the public as part of the permanent law.
2.
Under Common Law citizens have a duty to help a police officer to
discover and apprehend offenders (Please see Stone's Justice's Manual,
Vol. 1, 1968 Part III Practice and Evidence, Page 422). If they refuse
or fail to assist the Police by giving their names, etc., I consider
they should be penalised. I therefore, as an alternative, suggest that
the following or similar terms may be acceptable:-
3.
"Where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that
an offence has been committed or is likely to be committed, and when
required to do so by such an officer acting in the course of his duty,
every person shall give his correct name and address
#
I am prepared to discuss further at your convenience.
c.c. Defence Secretary-
Circulation
CYST/jw
(C.Y. SZE-TO)
for Commissioner of Police
CONFIDENTIAL
REGISTRY
1175,0
E.. 87+0/68
DATE..
INWARD LETTER
CONFIDENTIAL
G.F. 323
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMO
From
-
Colonial Secretariat
To
Hon Attorney General
Ref
(217) in CR 6/3231/59 III
Ref
AGC 12/3/1250/67
Phone
-
95302
Date
-
10th October 1968
Date
30th September 1968
Review of Emergency Legislation Emergency (Firework) Regulations
The Governor has directed that there should be an amendment to the
Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations which did not go as far as to
suggest that the policy was that the ban on the discharge of
fireworks was to be perpetual. This can be achieved by simply requiring
every person to have a permit for the storage of fireworks. This entails
the deletion of the proviso in Regulation 10 (5) of these Regulations.
2. The drafting of this legislation has been approved for List C of the
Drafting Programme
C.C.
S.C.A. 3.G. D.C.N.T. C. of L. D.S.
D. of E.
C.P. D.S.B. D.I.S.
11 Didy).
(T.J. Bedford)
for Defence Secretary
CONFIDENTIAL
.F. 323
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMO
From
Colonial Secretariat
To
Hon Attorney General
Ref
(217) in CR 6/3231/59 III Ref
-
AGC 12/3/1250/67
Phone
-
95302
Date
-
10th October 1968
Date
30th September 1968
Review of Emergency Legislation - Emergency (Firework) Regulations
The Governor has directed that there should be an amendment to the
Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations which did not go as far as to
suggest that the policy was that the ban on the discharge of
fireworks was to be perpetual. This can be achieved by simply requiring
every person to have a permit for the storage of fireworks, This entails
the deletion of the proviso in Regulation 10 (5) of these Regulations.
2. The drafting of this legislation has been approved for List C of the
Drafting Programme
C.C.
11 Bidp.
(T.J. Bedford)
for Defence Secretary
S.C.A. S.G. D.C.N.T. C. of L. D.S.
D. of E. C.P. D.S.B.
D.I.S.
CONFIDENTIA
10/10/08
OUTWARD
3771
LETTER
CONFIDENTIAL
:
しめん
0000733
CONFIDENTIAL
Attorney General's Chambers.
30/1250/67
From
Ref. (42)
in
Tel. No.
Date
MEMO
AGC 12/3/1250/67. The Ho/68.
95623
10th October, 1968.
214
To Hon. Commissioner of Labour and Mines.
Your Ref
in
dated
213
-
Review of Emergency Legislation Fireworks -
Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations.
in a memo dated the 30th September 1968 from the Solicitor General
to the Defence Secretary in connection with the review of Emergency
Legislation, paragraph 3 was as follows
2.
"With regard to the Emergency (Firework) Regulations, the Governor
directed that there should be an amendment to the Dangerous Goods
(General) Regulations which did not go so far as to suggest that the
policy was that the ban on the discharge of fireworks is to be
perpetual. It was agreed that this could be achieved by simply requiring
every person to have a permit for the storage of manufactured fireworks.
This would entail the deletion of the proviso in Regulation 15) of these
Regulations. The Defence Secretary is requested to arrange for drafting
instructions to issue accordingly.".
I understand that you administer the Dangerous Goods Ordinance and
accordingly, I send you herewith a first draft of the amending
regulations
upon which I shall be obliged to have your comments. The amending
regulations are short and straightforward and as such can, I think, be
dealt with without
going into the drafting priorities list.
3.
I have classified this memo as confidential as it seems to me that
communications relating to fireworks may still require to be dealt with
confidentially. If you take a contrary view please let me know.
JF Mellon
-(J.F. McKeon)
Law Draftsman.
C.C. Hon. Colonial Secretary.
JPW/es.
CONFIDENTIAL
LECISTRY
7639
DATE..
11/10/68 INWARD LETTER
CONFIDENTIAL
DANGEROUS GOODS ORDINANCE.
(Chapter 295).
Dangerous Goods (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1968.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the
Dangerous Goods Ordinance the Governor in Council has made the
following regulations -
Citation.
Amendment of regulation 10. (Cap. 295, sub. leg.)
1. These regulations may be cited as the Dangerous Goods
(General)(Amendment) Regulations 1968.
2. Regulation 10 of the principal regulations is amended
in paragraph (5) by deleting the proviso thereto.
Explanatory Note.
(This Note is not part of the regulations but is intended
to indicate their general purport).
Regulation 10 of the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations
provides that except as provided by that regulation or otherwise, no
explosives shall be stored otherwise than in a Government explosives
depot on Green Island or in a Mode A store. Manufactured fireworks are
by definition explosives and by paragraph (5) of regulation 10 such
fireworks not exceeding 400 lbs. in weight may be stored in a Mode B
store. The proviso to that paragraph exempts manufactured fireworks
in a quantity not exceeding 50 lbs. in weight from the ambit of
regulation 10.
These regulations provide for the deletion of the proviso
and accordingly manufactured fireworks (which by definition are
explosives) must be stored in the Government Explosives depot on Green
Island or in a Mode A store; a quantity of manufactured fireworks not
exeeding 400 lbs.in weight may be stored in a Kode B store, and the
exception in relation to the storage of a quantity of manufactured fire-
works not exceeding 50 lbs. in weight ceases to have effect.
7
From
or
G.F. 73
Правка
Spoken Sport | Sneakt
Attorney General's Chambers.
Ref. (49). in AGC 12/3/1250/67 (8)
Tel. No.
Date........
95265
14th....October....1.968.............
MEMO
fixed for 9.30m 23.19
F
To Commissioner of Police
(Attn: Mr. SZE-TO)
Your Ref. (6.6). in. C.ID/CON/15/4.
dated...
In diary
+
4th October, 1968.........
+
+
Review of Emergency Legislation
Mr. Bedford has indicated that he would be available to
discuss the quarterly Review at 11 a.m. on Wednesday the 23rd of
October in this office. I shall be grateful if you could confirm that
this time and place is suitable to you, or else to suggest
another time.
(G.R. Sneath)
Solicitor General
CONFIDENTIAL
REGISTRY
NO...7785 DATE 16:10 68
INWARD
LETTER
c.c. Defence Secretary
(Attn: Mr. Bedford)
GRS/mej:
G.F13C
0000733
From
CONFIDENTIAL
Attorney General's Chambers
Ref. (51) in AGC 12/3/1250/67 S
MEMO
To
220
Defence Secretary (Attn: Mr. Bedford) Commissioner of Police (Attn: Mr.
SZE-TO)
Tel. No.
95265
Date
23rd October, 1968.
Your Ref
in
dated
Review of Emergency Legislation
At the meeting this morning Mr. SZE-TO undertook to provide
the Police view as to the need for the further retention of the
Emergency Regulations dealing with inflammatory speeches and
inflammatory posters, and Regulation 119D which deals with the
possession of simulated bombs. This assessment would be made at the end
of November in time
for the Committee to make its quarterly report in December.
2.
/3231-59
CO
The Committee then considered Regulation 96, and in particular the
formula put forward in the memorandum from the C.P. dated 4th of
October. This formula did not commend itself to the other members of the
Committee, and we see no chance of it being recommended to the
Governor's Committee for inclusion in permanent legislation.
3.
I think I accurately represent the views of the Defence Branch
representative, as well as my own, when I state that in our opinion the
need to take names and addresses would in normal times arise only after
some serious incident (such as a Bank robbery) or when a planned Police
operation was in progress; and on either of these occasions a Police
officer of the rank of Inspector or above could be expected to be on the
scene in charge. This we think is very different from allowing any P.C.
to demand names and addresses indiscriminately with the sole limitation
being that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that somebody had
spat in public or driven his car without due care and attention. It is
not being suggested that the ordinary P.C. would abuse this power. It is
this possibility of abuse without any clear requirement for the power
that makes such legislation unacceptable.
A.
In discussion it was suggested that an acceptable limitation might be
found in a provision that required the P.C. to have reasonable I
undertook accordingly to grounds for demanding names and addresses.
FIDENTIAL REGISTRY
D
NO...79.76
ATE. 24+1.0/68 INWARD LETTER
CONFIDENTIAL
-/2.
I
2 -
4. (contd)
provide a draft on which the C.P.'s instructions may be taken. I remain
doubtful as to whether a need can be shown for such a power, even in
this limited form, to be vested in the rank and file. I do not however
wish to have to report to the Governor's Committee that we have been
unable to reach agreement until every possible compromise has been
considered.
5.
The formula which I have in mind is along these lines Where a Police
officer has reasonable grounds for demanding that a person shall give
his correct name and address, whether by reason of any suspicious
conduct on the part of that person or because the Police officer has
cause to suspect that such person has committed an offence
or for any other good reason, the person whose name and address is
demanded shall thereupon give it
Corn Cam Dueath
(G.R. Sneath)
Solicitor General
#
-
GRS/mej:
738
0000732
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMO
Colonial Secretariat
CR 6/3231/59 II
From
Ref. (221),
in
Tel. No.
"
95302
Date
24th October, 1968
1.
2<1
To
Attorney General
Your Ref.
(51) AGC 12/3/1250/67 S
in
dated
Review of Emergency Legislation
I confirm that the formula at para 5 of the Attorney General's memo
under reference has my support as a possible compromise.
C.C.
CONFIDENTI
25/10/68 3889
OUTWARD ETTE
Com. of Police (atta Mr. SZE-TO)
(T.J. Bedford)
for Defence Secretary
CONFIDENTIAL
G.A73B 0000732
From
Ref. (70) in
Tel. No.
Date
CONFIDENTIAL
Commissioner of Police
CID/CON/15/4 (TS)
234011 Ext.259
5th November, 1968
MEMO
To Hon. Attorney General
Your Ref. (51) in AGC 12/3/1250/67 s
23.10.68.
dated
Review of Emergency Legislation
I agree with the proposed formula at Para.5 of the
above memo.
22
c.c. Defence Secretary
(Attn: Mr. Bedford)
( C.Y. SEE-TO )
for Commissioner of Police
CONAMENTIAL
DATE.
PELISTRY
8276
INWARD
LETTER
CONFIDENTIAL
+
G.F. 73C
0000793
CONFIDENTIAL
Commissioner of Police
MEMO
To
Hon. Attorney General
From
Ref. (71) in
CID/CON/15/4 (TS)
Tel. No.
234011 Ext.259
Your Ref (51)
in
Date
15th November, 1968.
dated
AGC 12/3/1250/67 8
23.10.68.
223
2.
Review of Emergency Legislation
Please refer to Para.l of the above quoted memo,
We are still from time to time getting cases of simulated bombs
and there is no definite sign that they may not recur in force. There is
now no permanent legislation to deal with simulated bombs. Until such is
legislated I consider that Reg.119D should be retained.
3.
Cases of inflammatory speeches or inflammatory posters are now
rather rare. However, there is at present no effective legislation to
control posters, hoisting of banners against walls and writing of
slogans on roadways. Until effective legislation against such, which I
understand is under consideration, I am of the opinion that the
Emergency Regulations dealing with inflammatory speeches and
inflammatory posters should be retained.
c.c. Defence Secretary (Attn. Mr. Bedford)
Circulation.
1
( C.Y. SZ-TO )
for Commissioner of Police
1
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL RECISTRY
NO.
8573 DATE/6/4/68
INWARD
LETTER
0000733
CONFIDENTIAL
From
Attorney General's Chambers
Ref. (56) in AGC 12/3/1250/67 (s)
MEMO
To
Commissioner of Police
(Attn: Mr. C.Y. SZE-TO)
Your Ref (71) in
CID/CON/15/4 (TS)
15th November, 1968.
Tel. No.
95265
Date
19th November, 1968.
dated
Review of Emergency Legislatin
Your most recent memorandum on this subject seems
to reflect a fundamental divergence of approach between us. If I
interpret it correctly the Police view is that because simulated bombs
may again make rare appearances, and because the occasional poster or
banner may be put up, then the Emergency Regulations relating to these
things should remain in force until replaced by permanent legislation.
2.
I would suggest that it is not enough to consider only that these
objects may still appear from time to time, but rather must regard be
had for the circumstances in which they appear, and which in my opinion
determine the seriousness of the event. The Emergency Regulations
dealing with simulated bombs were
introduced, and in my view justified, in a situation where their use was
causing widespread disruption of transport, loss of morale and
confidence in Government and where their continuing success might have
opened the way for a more general campaign of terrorism. The Regulations
on inflammatory speeches and posters were similarly introduced in a
climate of violence and constant threats of the use of force to
over-throw the Government.
3.
It was to meet these threats that the Security Forces required, and were
given, very wide powers in these Regulations; and at the same time to
ensure that the guilty were convicted when caught and given deterrent
punishment, the Regulations were drafted in terms so broad as to render
liable to such punishment many who were not culpable of any subversive
activity. suggested above, all this was necessary and justified in the
circumstances then prevailing.
CANLIDENTIAL
NO.
REGISTRY
8651
DATE..20
-20/11/68) INWARD LETTER
CONFIDENTIAL
-/2
As
- 2 -
1!
4.
Though it may be true that subversion in Hong Kong remains latent and
that the Colony's security could be menaced again at short notice, it is
surely accepted that there are no
imminent threats such as those referred to above. If these
Regulations are incorporated in the general body of the Emergency
(Principal) Regulations, not in force but available at an instant's
notice, I would have thought that potential
threats were fully provided for.
5.
In maintaining that the continuing in force of these Regulations can
only be justified by the existence of imminent threats, such as existed
in 1967, I believe I may
reflect the views of the Defence Branch, If there is this fundamental
divergency of approach between us, I think the general policy question
will have to be referred to the .Governor's Committee. But first we
should define our own
positions carefully so that the alternatives can be concisely
itio and cogently put before that Committee.
Conhamoneath.
(G. R. Sneath)
Solicitor General
c.c. Defence Secretary
(Attn: Mr. Bedford)
GRS/mej:
0000733
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMO
(225)
From
Colonial Secretariat
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.