The organisers of a protest march by 4,500 New Territories villagers who defied police orders and marched on the Central Government Offices (CGO) last Sunday will not be prosecuted. The decision has infuriated human rights and pro-democracy activists who claim the decision exposes double standards in the authorities' handling of demonstrations. The police admit the protesters - who were marching against a new system of elections which strips indigenous villagers of their exclusive rights to stand and vote in village polls - did not comply with a condition of their permit to demonstrate that only 500 should march on the government offices. But police defended what they describe as a 'compromise' reached on the day that allowed the whole body of the march to proceed to the government headquarters in batches of 500. A police spokesman said the organisers of the march would be issued with an 'advisory' letter explaining that in future they should adhere to agreed conditions but no prosecution or warning action would be taken. Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor director Law Yuk-kai said: 'This is a clear example of discrimination. When about 30 pro-democracy demonstrators wanted to protest against Article 23 inside the fenced-off area at CGO last month, they were denied. 'Now, 4,500 emotionally charged New Territories villagers can be in clear breach of the initial conditions of their permit to protest, yet they are accommodated.' A police spokesman said there was no violence at any point during last Sunday's protest but a South China Morning Post reporter who was covering the march saw some demonstrators jostle and taunt police and block traffic as they ignored warnings by officers not to proceed. 'The participants did not comply with this [the batch of 500] condition,' the police spokesman said. 'Nonetheless, they did not force their way through. 'Having taken public safety into consideration and secured their agreement to the following compromise, they were allowed to proceed in groups of about 500. 'There was no violence during that section or for the whole procession. 'The participants moved forward naturally because of other participants pressing from behind.' A spokesman for the indigenous villagers, Wanko Tang Tsun-wan, blamed the police for mis-directing protesters and denied there was any breach of the conditions of the protest permit. 'It was the police who breached the agreement, not us. Their failure to do their job properly has actually caused us much trouble,' Mr Tang said. He claimed the original agreement was that the main protest group would stay in the pedestrian zone in Chater Road and 500 petitioners would march on to the government headquarters. According to Mr Tang, officers mistakenly led the wrong group of protesters to the front, blocking the designated 500-strong group. The entire procession lost control at that point and all of the 4,500 demanded to march forward. 'Since the police have not properly directed our members where to go, it was chaos at the back of the procession which was jammed inside a tunnel,' he said. 'It was only natural that at that point everyone wanted to march up together.' Asked whether his group would comply with future protest agreements, Mr Tang said: 'Of course we will. We have never breached any rules.' Outspoken rural leader Brian Kan Ping-chee, who led last Sunday's demonstration, said after the protest that he was 'not at all worried' about the prospect of being prosecuted. 'Since when did you see a leader being prosecuted? The aides would deal with it,' Mr Kan said. 'This is the way of villagers.'