Page 180 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
177
The cleansing staff can take action under section 22(1)(a) of the Public Health and Municipal Services (PHMS) Ordinance, Cap. 132 against shop operators for causing obstruction to scavenging operations. This is normally done when the illegal extension prevents the cleansing staff from carrying out their normal duties to clean and wash the pavement. The penalty for this offence is usually a relatively low fine by the courts.
In the San Po Kong area, the third approach was adopted. Under this, the HCT staff take arrest action under section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228 and/or section 83B of PHMS Ordinance, Cap. 132 against the shop operators for causing obstruction and/or hawking without a licence depending on circumstances involved. Where the shop operators are prosecuted under section 4A of Cap. 228, they are generally only required to pay a fine of about $400. Even if prosecuted on a weekly basis, the fines are easily written off as a cheap business overhead when compared to the rent that they would otherwise have had to pay for additional shop premises had they not made illegal use of the public pavement. Where prosecution action is taken under section 83B of Cap. 132, the HCT staff are empowered to seize the obstructing articles which will be confiscated upon conviction by the court. As the value of the goods concerned is generally far higher than the fines imposed by the court, use of section 83B is a far more effective deterrent. The effectiveness of this form of enforcement action is demonstrated by the petition of the shop operators in San Po Kong area who have illegal shop extensions. The shop operators have not denied that they are conducting illegal business on the pavement but are primarily complaining that the Department has been effective in deterring them from continuing to ignore the law.
Turning to the specific points raised by Ms. Ada WONG, the first part of the question enquires if there is any quota for prosecution to be undertaken by the HCT, and whether in order to meet the quota, the HCT prosecutes shops unreasonably and repeatedly; and whether it is appropriate to prosecute shops for 'unlicensed hawking'. The Department has no quota system for the HCT to prosecute hawkers. Nor does the HCT prosecute shops unreasonably. Were they to do so, the courts would quickly overturn the prosecution action. But where an offender continues to persistently ignore the law, the Department must take repeated action until the illegal extension ceases to exist. Our Principal Legal Officer has confirmed that it is appropriate to prosecute shop operators for 'unlicensed hawking' if they place their goods on the pavement outside their shops for sale.
With regard to the second part of the question about whether the HCT of a certain district will be flexibly deployed to another to tackle unlicensed hawking, the answer is yes. The Department constantly reviews the distribution of HCT squads in each district vis-à-vis the hawker situation in order to make the most effective use of the available staff resources.
Page 180 of 606
Page 180 of 606
Page 180 of 606
Page 180Page 181