1.
BRIEF
vid Wider
仙
Foo Phone he
COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS SCHEME
See
4/2
Following the Governor's Committee decision in 1973 to seek alternative forms of punishment to imprisonment, a Working Party was set up and submitted its interim report on a Community Service Order (CSO) scheme to the Committee in September 1973. The report recommended that, further consideration of the introduction of the scheme into Hong Kong should be deferred until experience gained in the U.K. system (which commenced in 1972) could be evaluated. The Working Party also expressed the view that, since the Hong Kong Courts already had a comprehensive range of punishments available to them, this new form of punishment, as yet untested, should not be added. Their reservations derived also from doubts about:
i)
ii)
the nature of the work that could be done in Hong Kong having regard to the need to provide for a range of work for different days and different weather conditions and having regard to the Working Party's view that it would be preferable for such offenders to be employed in teams in remote areas;
the selection of sufficient suitable candidates; and
iii) the extent of administrative and supervisory support required.
Arising from this report, the Governor considered that the case for the intro- duction of a CSO scheme had not been proved but it could be re-examined if the administrative aspects of the proposal were found capable of resolution.
2.
As a result, in December 1973 and subsequently, we asked FCO to obtain, from the Home Office, a report on the working of the CSO scheme.
In 1974, Miss Strong of the Home Office, Romney House, Marsham Street, London, S.W.1, sent us, through FCO, a memorandum of guidance issued under cover of Home Office Circular No. 197/1974. In April 1975 we were again advised by FCO that Miss Strong would be sending us a copy of the evaluation report when available; this eventually reached us in November 1975. On page 70 of the report it stated that it was intended to get a clearer picture of the outcome (in the short term) of the scheme in mid-1975. Accordingly in March 1976 we asked Hong Kong Depart- ment to obtain any follow-up information that became available. In May of this year Mr. David of the Hong Kong Department advised us that the Home Office expected to publish statistical information on the scheme in July. It is this we now await plus any other relevant information.
3.
I attach a paper outlining the points of comparison between the U.K. CSO scheme and that proposed for Hong Kong. However, to enable us to further consider the merits of such a scheme for Hong Kong I would suggest that you seek an updated evaluation, if available. In case no new evaluation is available, it would be helpful if we had replies to the following questions which arise from consideration of the 1975 Home Office report on Community Service Orders:
1. The general types of offences for which offenders were
sentenced to perform CSO› ?
/...
COMMUNITY SERVICE