545
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1936
AS A RESULT, ONLY A THEFT CHARGE UNDER THE THEFT ORDINANCE CAN BE INSTIT, ED AGAINST A PERSON WHO TRANSFERS HIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT, WITCH REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY, TO ANOTHER SON,+ HE SAID.
+THIS IS NEITHER APPROPRIATE NOR EASY TO PROVE IN COURT.+
THE AMENDMENT WILL MAKE ANY PERSON TRANSFERRING SUCH DOCUMENTS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE TO A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $20 000 AND TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT ON SUMMARY CONVICTION, AND TO A FINE OF $50 000 AND IMPRISONMENT FOR 14 YEARS ON CONVICTION ON INDICTMENT.
MR JE AFFRESON SAID THAT 85 CASES RELATING TO THE USE OF FORGED TRAVEL DOCUMENTS HAD COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION IN 1985. MANY OF THESE MIGHT HAVE INVOLVED UNLAWFUL TRANSFERS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHEN A PERSON USED ANOTHER PERSON'S PASSPORT BY SUBSTITUTING THE PHOTOGRAPH.
THE FIGURE FOR THE FIRST EIGHT MONTHS OF THIS YEAR WAS 50.
+WHILE THE PROBLEM IS NOT ALARMING AT THIS STAGE THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED SHOULD HELP TO DETER POTENTIAL OFFENDERS,+ MR JE AFFRESON SAID.
+FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THE BILL, WE GAVE PARTICULAR PUBLICITY TO THE PROPOSAL THAT ANY PERSON WHO SELLS OR LENDS HIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT TO ANOTHER PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING HIM TO STAY IN HONG KONG OR TRAVEL ABROAD, WHETHER OR NOT FOR A FINANCIAL GAIN, WOULD BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE. WE SHALL BROADCAST THE SAME MESSAGE AGAIN AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE BILL.+
THE BILL ALSO PROPOSES TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE TO BROADEN THE EXISTING SCOPE OF +OWNER+ TO INCLUDE OWNERS IN RELATION TO A VEHICLE.
MR JEAFFRESON EXPLAINED THAT UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE, ANY VEHICLE USED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE OF LANDING AND REMAINING IN HONG KONG WITHOUT PERMISSION WOULD BE LIABLE TO FORFEITURE. BUT THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION OF +OWNER+ IN RELATION TO A VEHICLE IN THE CURRENT LEGISLATION HAD CREATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN SERVING A NOTICE OF SEIZURE. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS SUBJECT TO A HIRE PURCHASE AGREÉMENT UNDER WHICH THE ACTUAL OWNER WAS THE FINANCE COMPANY.
THE PROPOSED DEFINITION WOULD INCLUDE THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME A VEHICLE WAS REGISTERED UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE THE PERSON BY WHOM THE VEHICLE WAS KEPT AND USED AND, IN RELATION TO A VEHICLE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A HIRING AGREEMENT OR A HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE PERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE UNDER THE AGREEMENT.
/ANOTHER PROPOSAL