C.S. 84
RESTRICTED
For discussion
on 11th December 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1973
DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRES
(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1973
XCR(73)267, Copy No. 6
A
B
Annexed for the consideration of Honourable Members are the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres (Amendment) Bill 1973, at Annex A, and the Drug Addiction Treatment Centres (Amendment) Regulations 1973, at Annex B.
2
1969.
The present ordinance and regulations were first enacted in January Since then two new centres have been opened in addition to the
Tai Lam Addiction Treatment Centre, that is, the Ma Po Ping Addiction Treatment Centre for men and the Addiction Treatment Centre within Tai Lam Centre for women. The centres have played a valuable role in the war against narcotics. The purpose of this bill is to introduce a number of improve ments in the procedural arrangements affecting inmates that experience has shown to be desirable.
3
The main provisions of the bill are as follows:
A
(a) Clause 3 provides that convictions shall only be entered on the
offender's record if the court considers that the circumstances of the offence so warrant and so orders. The treatment is regarded as medical rather than punitive; it is in the interest of successful rehabilitation that offenders, particularly young and first offenders, should be able to return to normal life with a clean sheet. The amendment thus enables the court to require that a conviction shall be recorded in suitable cases but otherwise no such entry will be made;
(b) Clause 4 provides that the Commissioner of Prisons may by order recall a person subject to a supervision order who has failed to comply with any requirements of the order for a further period of treatment. A person recalled to an addiction treatment centre is to be detained until the expiry of 18 months from the date of the original detention order or the expiry of 6 months from the date of his arrest following recall, whichever is the later. This replaces the present provision under which the procedure for such a breach involves a further appearance before a magistrate. The proposal has been criticised by the Magistrates Association who take the view that such further detention should be authorized judicially.
RESTRICTED