§ Mr. HardyI beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 33, after ' anything ', insert which is'
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this we are to take Amendment No. 16
§ Mr. HardyThese two amendments are improvements in the language of the Bill. I need not speak at great length in commendation of that aim.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 16, in line 34, after 'creatures', insert and '.—Mr. Hardy.]
§ Mr. HardyI beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'which is' and insert 'and may be'
I recognise that the use of "may be" twice in the same sentence may not be evidence of polished prose, but we note that the requirements of law are not necessarily the requirements of elegant language
As this clause stands, there would have to be a conviction before anyone could be apprehended, accosted or approached if he were suspected of committing an offence. That would put the cart before the horse, and would not be common sense. As it stands, the clause would put the forces of law or the occupier or owner of land in a quite absurd position. I am sure that the House would not wish to do that. The phrase involves a presumption which is best left for the courts to decide. To establish a sensible arrangement it will be necessary to have "and may be" instead of "which is".
§ Amendment agreed to.