1
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 May 1988
1349
third, the requirements of the courts for knowledge of previous convictions
when considering sentence; and
fourth, the prevalence of the offence and the community's attitude towards it. The list of recordable offences is reviewed annually by the police. Those which are considered to justify removal under the criteria to which I have just referred are omitted from the list, and other offences may be added. In general, the recordable offences include those which are particularly serious such as murder, manslaughter, rape, abduction, robbery and other violent crimes, or crimes which are regarded as particularly obnoxious or anti-social by the community. At present, there are some 94 recordable offences and I should be happy to make available copies to Members. I should emphasise that any person who applies for a Certificate of No Criminal Conviction, with a previous conviction for an offence which is no longer recordable, is issued with a certificate.
Regarding the last part of the question, the spent conviction scheme has no bearing on the issue of Certificates of No Criminal Conviction. Applicants for visas or immigration permits to certain countries are required by those countries. to state whether they have ever been convicted of an offence. This would be regardless of the fact that the Certificates of No Criminal Conviction may certify that he has no record according to the current police list of recordable offences. Whether or not the conviction is regarded as spent under Hong Kong legislation is immaterial. These countries wish to be informed of any convictions so that they can form their own judgement of the suitability of the applicant. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance was designed to cater for local conditions. It cannot proscribe the attitude which other states should take to offences, and it cannot be used to remove any individual's responsibility to make a full disclosure of offences if required to do so for emigration purposes. These matters are discussed more fully in paragraphs 11-15 of the paper 'A spent conviction scheme for Hong Kong a proposal' published by the Attorney General's Chambers in December 1984.
However, to assist applicants with a recorded conviction which is regarded as 'spent' in Hong Kong by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, the police clearly endorse any letters of refusal to grant a certificate with a chop, stating that:
"This conviction is regarded as spent in Hong Kong by virtue of section 2(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance.'
*The authorities receiving the letter will know from this endorsement that the offence is regarded as trivial and is not given any further consideration in Hong Kong. They will, however, as I have said, in any case exercise their judgement, and are free to disregard offences that are not yet considered as 'spent' in Hong Kong, or are not even covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance.