I
26
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1986
HOWEVER, SHE SUGGESTED THAT AN APPLICANT COULD EXPLAIN IN WRITING THAT THE CONVICTION WAS A +SPENT+ ONE AND COULD NOT BE USED IN LOCAL COURTS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVE THAT THE CONVICTION WAS NOT A SERIOUS ONE SO AS TO REDUCE ITS EFFECTS ON THE APPLICATION.
COMMENTING ON THE BILL OVERALL, MISS TAM AGREED THAT ITS PROVISIONS WERE FAR MORE STRINGENT THAN SIMILAR LEGISLATION ELSEWHERE, AND SHE SUPPORTED THE SUGGESTION THAT A REVIEW SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT ONE OR TWO YEARS AFTER ITS ENACTMENT.
SHE FURTHER WARNED YOUNG PEOPLE NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE + SPENT+ CONVICTION SCHEME AS THE PAST CONVICTION RECORDS WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE REPORTED WHEN THEY SOUGHT APPOINTMENTS IN GOOD POSITIONS OR WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR EMIGRATION IN FUTURE.
+THE BILL ONLY AIMS TO HELP THOSE OFFENDERS WHO WANT TO TURN OVER A NEW LEAF AND REHABILITATE THEMSELVES IN TIME,+ SHE STRESSED.
CHEONG-LEEN ABSTAINS FROM VOTING
****
THE HON HILTON CHEONG-LEEN ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON THE REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL 1986 IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY) ALTHOUGH HE SAID HE SUPPORTED THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE SCHEME INCORPORATED IN IT.
SPEAKING DURING THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE BILL, MR CHEONG-LEEN SAID THAT THE SCHEME BROUGHT HONG KONG AS A MODERN INTERNATIONAL CITY, INTO LINE WITH OTHER PROGRESSIVE TERRITORIES TO ENCOURAGE OFFENDERS CONVICTED OF MINOR CRIMES TO REFORM THEMSELVES ON A PERMANENT BASIS.
HOWEVER, HE OBJECTED TO CLAUSE 7 OF THE BILL WHICH PROPOSED TO AMEND SECTION 36 (1) OF THE MAGISTRATE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE MAGISTRATE TO PROCEED TO CONVICTION IN EVERY CASE.
MR CHEONG-LEEN SAID THAT CASES HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST IN WHICH THE MAGISTRATE MIGHT BE SATISFIED THAT AN OFFENCE HAD TECHNICALLY BEEN COMMITTED BUT THAT THE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT.
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE +NO CONVICTION RECORDED+ PROVISION PROVIDED A USEFUL PROCEDURE, HE SAID.
/IT WOULD