12
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1989
UNLICENSED
HE SAID IN THE CASE OF
HAWKING, SECTION 84(1) PROVIDED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT ANY AUTHORISED PUBLIC OFFICER SUCH AS A MEMBER OF URBAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF, MIGHT ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT ANY PERSON SUSPECTED OF SUCH AN OFFENCE.
IN ADDITION, SECTION 85(1) PROVIDED THAT ANY PERSON WHO WAS SO ARRESTED SHOULD BE TAKEN TO THE NEAREST POLICE STATION, OR BE GIVEN INTO THE CUSTODY OF A POLICE OFFICER, WHO WAS EMPOWERED TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY OF THE PERSON.
OF USD
"SINCE THIS PROCEDURE IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED, THE QUESTION STAFF POWERS TO DEMAND IDENTITY CARDS DOES NOT ARISE," MR CHAU SAID.
HE NOTED THAT FOR LITTERING OFFENCES, THE PRIME METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT WAS THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE TO THE LITTERER TO APPEAR BEFORE A MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 8A OF THE MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE.
STAFF.
THE NOTICE IS ISSUED BY AUTHORISED URBAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
THE FORM OF THE NOTICE IS PRESCRIBED AND IS SET OUT AS FORM 1A IN PART I OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE MAGISTRATES (FORMS) RULES MADE UNDER THE MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE (CAP 227).
THE FORM PROVIDES FOR THE ENTRY OF THE HONG KONG IDENTITY CARD NUMBER OF THE SUSPECT, IF KNOWN.
MR CHAU ALSO SAID THAT SECTION 131(3) OF CHAPTER 132 REQUIRED URBAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF TO MAKE A COMPLAINT OR PROVIDE INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS OFFENCES INCLUDING LITTERING OFFENCES IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE.
IN ADDITION, SECTION 23(1)(A) OF CHAPTER 132 PROVIDED THAT ANY PUBLIC OFFICER AUTHORISED BY THE URBAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT MIGHT REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHOM HE REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING CONTRAVENED ANY REGULATION MADE UNDER SECTION 15, TO GIVE HIS CORRECT NAME AND ADDRESS AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT, HE SAID.
THE PUBLIC CLEANSING AND PREVENTION OF NUISANCE (URBAN COUNCIL) BY-LAWS WERE MADE UNDER THAT SECTION.
*
"POWERS OF ARREST ARE GIVEN IN DEFAULT, MR CHAU SAID.
HE SAID THAT SECTION 23(1)(A) WAS CONSIDERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG IN THE CASE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TAM MAN-WAI (MAG. APP. 917 OF 1988).
MR CHAU SAID IN THAT CASE MR JUSTICE HOOPER RULED THAT IN THIS CONNECTION, THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE AN IDENTITY CARD AT FIRST INSTANCE UNDER 23(1) WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO OBSTRUCTION.
/BUT MR ...............