34
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1985
FOR OFFENCES (OTHER THAN SPEEDING) WHICH ALSO GAVE RISE TO PENALTY POINTS UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING-OFFENCE POINTS) ORDINANCE, BOTH METHODS COULD BE USED.
+ IF THE COURT DOES DISQUALIFY A PERSON, SUCH A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE TO RECEIVE THE PENALTY POINTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THAT OFFENCE. IT ADDITION ANY PREVIOUSLY ACCRUED POINTS ARE EXTINGUISHED,
+ IF THE COURT DOES NOT DISQUALIFY THEN PENALTY POINTS WILL BE ACCRUED IN THE USUAL WAY, AS THEY WOULD IF THE FIXED PENALTY PROCEDURE WAS ADOPTED.
+ IN THESE CASES THE TWO SYSTEMS CAN CO-EXIST WITHOUT DIFFICULTY, MR MACPHERSON EXPLAINED.
ON THE PARTICULAR OFFENCE OF SPEEDING, MR MACPHERSON SAID SECTION 41(2) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE GAVE A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE COURT TO IMPOSE A DISQUALIFICATION OF 12 MONTHS WHEN A CASE WHICH CAME BEFORE THE COURT ON INFORMATION INVOLVED A THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENCE.
+ THE POSSIBILITY OF DISQUALIFICATION UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OFFENCE POINTS) ORDINANCE ARISES ON THE ACCUMULATION OF 15 POINTS.
+A CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 41 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE ATTRACTS THREE POINTS. FIVE SPEEDING CONVICTIONS ARE THEREFORE NECESSARY BEFORE A PERSON BECOMES LIABLE TO DISQUALIFICATION, + HE SAID.
IT IS THIS CATEGORY OF OFFENCES WHICH MIGHT CAUSE CONFUSION, MR MACPHERSON SAID,
MR MACPHERSON SAID THAT AN INTER-DEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP HAD EXAMINED THE ANOMALY AND HE INTENDED TO RECOMMEND TO THE TRANSPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL THE REMOVAL OF THE MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION PROVISION UNDER 41(2) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE.
+THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COURT TO ORDER DISQUALIFICATION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD REMAIN, MR MACPHERSON SAID.
/35
*