Reference
It seems suprising that
to these very recent amendments,
ourselves) only last year. no reference is made to these especially
as one of the objectives was
to make those
previsions less incompatible with the BOR.
Re
7.
CODE 18-77
7 on
раа stand they
presumptione; I agree
are incompatible with Article 11(1) BOR
and that the amendments are an
But the effect of section 17 N combined with section
that as
as they
improvement.
as amended
17I (4) was amended is
still that both presumptions could be applied
cumulatively
le. Where
in relation to the same offence.
is
a person is
illegal immigrant
the
employee was
charged with employing
an
immigrant it could be promed both that
was A pesan found at his place of employment was his employee, and that that peson was not lawfully employable. The
presumption in section 17N seems harder to
justify, particulary
require the
working
Om
ретал
as
it
operat
does not even
concerned to have been found
the defendant's premises, but merely
to have been there, I warder whether HKG
would
consider
a
fother amendment to restrict
the presumption to cases
Where the alleged
waking?
PTO:->
illeged immigrant is found actually