(1) Interpretation. I presume that the words "such conviction" In S.5 (1)(r) are intended to refer to any conviction of an offence against S.3 c.f. 5.2(e) of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, where "such conviction" clearly refers back to the words "on conviction for offending as aforesaid" at the beginning of the section.
In s.5(1)(f) of the Hong Kong Ordinance, however, the words "such conviction" might reasonably be interpreted as referring only to the "second conviction" mentioned in 3.5(1)(e) since 8.5(1) does not open with a general reference to "convictiong" and this taken together with the fact that the word "and" is used only between (e) and (f) might be taken to indicate that (f) as well as (e) relates to second convictions only. Incidentally would it not be desirable to insert the words "or subsequent" after "second" in (e)?
(11) Interpretation. Having regard to the provisions of 8.5(1)(f) and 5(2)(A) and to s.2(c) or of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, I presume that forfeiture of office under 8.5(1)(a) is also to be at the discretion of the Magistrate or court. The language used does not, however, make this quite clear and it might be thought that 8.5(1)(a) merely declares that a conviction shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the person concerned by the body which employe him or
by
14
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.