30
WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1986
+NO DOUBT WHEN MAKING THAT DECISION THE COURT WILL HAVE REGARD TO ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN PARTICULAR WHETHER A FIRE HAZARD ORDER IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC ARE PROPERLY PROTECTED FROM THE RISK OF FIRE, HE SAID.
MR MATHEWS ALSO SAID HE WISHED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE FIRE HAZARD ORDER REPRESENTED ANOTHER WARNING.
HE SAID: +MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, IT IS SIMPLY THE MEANS BY WHICH THE COURT ORDERS A PERSON TO DO WHAT THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES HAS ALREADY TOLD HIM TO DO (IN A FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT NOTICE) BUT WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE.
+NO OFFENCE IS COMMITTED UNLESS THE PERSON IN QUESTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.+
MR MATHEWS STRESSED THAT AS UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A FIRE HAZARD ORDER WOULD NO LONGER INCLUDE AN ORDER FOR CLOSURE, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE AN ORDER FOR CLOSURE ON AN ORAL COMPLAINT BY THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING A CONVICTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT NOTICE.
THE PROCEDURE FOR ISSUING A CLOSING ORDER WAS GOVERNED BY A SEPARATE PROVISION IN THE BILL WHICH REQUIRED 24 HOURS' NOTICE IN WRITING OF THE INTENTION OF THE DIRECTOR TO APPLY FOR SUCH AN ORDER.
TURNING TO CONCERN THAT THE FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MAY MAKE ARBITRARY ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS, OR THAT THERE MAY BE ABUSE OF POWER, MR MATHEWS ASSURED MEMBERS THAT ONCE A SUMMONS WAS ISSUED, WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS FOUND GUILTY, AND WHAT, IF ANY, PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED, WOULD BE MATTERS TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT, NOT THE FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT+.
MR MATHEWS SAID PUBLICITY FOR THE AMENDMENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE FIRE PREVENTION CAMPAIGN PUBLICITY WORKING GROUP, WHICH WAS LOOKING INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF PRODUCING PAMPHLETS OUTLINING THE NEW LAW.
/31