Download report loitering PDF

Titlereport loitering
File Size582.7 KB
Total Pages105
Document Text Contents
Page 1




Page 53


It would be in line with the practice of other jurisdictions (see

paras. 2.1 and 6.9 above).

It is less open to attack as being draconian (see para. 3.5
above), and is less likely than s.160(1) to lead to strained relations
between the police and the public (see paras 5.33 – 5.35, and 6.18 and
6.20 above).

8.19 Any possible recurrence of gangs or groups of thugs or bullies
behaving in an offensive or menacing way, without actual physical aggression,
which was the problem that apparently led to the introduction of section 160
(see paras. 2.4 – 2.6, 3.2 and 4.4 above) would, in our view, be adequately
catered for by subsections (2) and (3) of section 160, which we would retain
as unobjectionable (see paras. 3.2, 3.8 and 3.13 above), even though there
have been few prosecutions under those subsections (see paras. 3.8, 3.21,
4.10, 5.15 and 5.32).

8.20 We have considered the three options outlined in chapter 7 (at
para 7.1) and have concluded that the objections to section 160(1) so far
outweigh its effectiveness as a crime prevention measure that its retention in
either present or a modified form is undesirable. Accordingly, we have
concluded that section 160(1) should be repealed. We have reached this
conclusion taking account of the existence of section 54 of the Police Force
Ordinance which we consider to provide a realistic alternative.

8.21 Neither we nor the sub-committee are aware of dissatisfaction
having been voiced at the operation of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 160.
We propose that they should remain unchanged.


Similer Documents