THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17. 1985
17
HOWEVER, ARGUED THE URBAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, MR FU HAD BEEN PLACED ON A BOND FOR SIX MONTHS IN THE THIRD CASE AND ORDERED TO PAY $500 COURT COSTS, IMPLYING THAT THE COURT HAD NEVERTHELESS DECIDED TO PENAL ISE HIM.
---
THUS THE TANGLED LEGAL POINT AROSE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD THIS BE TREATED AS A THIRD ACTUAL OFFENCE?
AT TODAY'S HEARING, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MR WALTER SULKE THREW THE BALL TO COUNCILLORS HEARING THE APPEAL, SAYING: +WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF LEGAL BRAINS HERE.+
BARRISTER MISS MARIA TAM POINTED OUT THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE GUIDED BY THE COURT'S ACTUAL DECISION - NOT TO RECORD A CONVICTION WHILE SOLICITOR MR EDMUND CHOW ALSO MADE SOME POINTS.
MR AUGUSTINE CHUNG LIKENED THE CASE TO ONE WHERE A DRIVER CAUGHT SPEEDING THREE TIMES IN THREE YEARS AUTOMATICALLY LOSES HIS LICENCE BUT IF NOT CONVICTED ON ONE OF THE THREE SPEEDING CHARGES WOULD NOT LOSE HIS LICENCE.
THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, NOTING THAT IT WAS GLAD TO FIND THAT RECENT INSPECTIONS OF THE RESTAURANT CONF IRMED THAT THE STANDARD OF THE
RESTAURANT CONFIRMED THAT THE STANDARD OF HYGIENE WAS NOW SATISFACTORY.
+QUITE WRONG FOR RATEPAYERS TO FOOT $8 MILLION BILL
IT IS QUITE WRONG+ THAT THE URBAN COUNCIL HAS TO PAY FOR FOOD SAMPLES WHICH HEALTH INSPECTORS TAKE AWAY FOR TESTING.
THIS WAS SAID TODAY BY MR WALTER SULKE WHEN HE WAS CHAIRING THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETING OF THE FOOD HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE.
+THERE IS NO REASON WHY RATEPAYERS SHOULD COUGH UP $8 MILLION OVER ONE YEAR FOR THE TAKING OF SAMPLES FOR TESTING, HE SAID, THIS SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE TRADE.+
DR RONALD PERRY, HYGIENE ADVISER OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BRANCH AND THE PERSON WHOSE SECTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FOOD-SAMPLING, SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND REPORT LATER TO MR SULKE ON WHETHER A CHANGE COULD BE MADE.
/18