CO129-539-14 Establishment of a vehicular ferry service for Hong Kong Harbour 30-3-1932 - 1-12-1932 — Page 8

250

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Objects and Reasons.

сь

|

The "Objects and Reasons" for the Bill were stated follows:-

as

This Ordinance consolidates and to some extent amends the law relating to magistrates and their powers. A Table of Correspondence is attached which shows the source of each section. The chief amendments made are as follows:-

Sections 39 to 42 and section 44 have been transferred bodily from the Summary Offences Ordinance, 1845, in which they appear as sections 37, 38, 40 and 43.

All the provisions of these sections are more appropriate to a Magistrates' Ordinance.

Section 43 is new, being derived mainly from the Police Property Act, 1897, (60 & 61 Vict. c. 30), which empowers a Magistrate to make orders in respect of property that has come into the possession of the police in connection with any crime, [cf. s. 45 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, 1845], with the proviso (derived from s. 41 of the same Ordinance) that no order for forfeiture of property of which the owner is unknown shall be made within twelve months.

Section 80 (old section 77) has been redrafted to meet a point recently raised as to the effect of a committal for trial when the criminal session of the Supreme Court for the month in which the accused is committed opens considerably later than the average date, ie., the 18th of the month.

For example, the July, 1932, session did not open until August 2nd, 1932. Under section 77 of No. 3 of 1890 any accused person committed for trial between the 10th July and the 1st August should, according to the letter of the law, have been tried at that session, whereas the obvious intention of the section is to require that any such committal should be one for trial at the session to be opened on or about August 18th.

In section 94 (old section 90) the maximum amount of com- pensation that a magistrate can order where a complaint has been maliciously preferred and the maximum penalty he can inflict for the wilful giving of false testimony before him have been raised from $50 to $100 in each case. Section 42 of No. 1 of 1845 (which section is no longer needed and does not appear in the Bill of the Summary Offences Ordinance, 1932), already empowers a magistrate to grant compensation up to $100 to the victim of a malicious and vexatious prosecution.

Page