CO129-616-6 Hotels Ordinance- 1949 21-2-1949 - 21-2-1949 — Page 166

32

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

given otherwise.

Clause 39 is intended to replace section 99 by a new section which allows a magistrate to review an order or deter- mination consequential upon conviction only where the order is in excess of jurisdiction. By resorting to the procedure known as certiorari the anomalous result of causing the conviction to be set aside altogether where the sentence is in excess of jurisdiction could be produced. This is contrary to the interests of justice and although the procedure has not been used in Hong Kong it is thought desirable to abolish it in such cases. (See sub-section (7) of the proposed new section.) In consequence of this it is proposed that the period of time for exercising the right to apply for review should be extended from 7 days to 30 days.

20. Part VI of the principal Ordinance provides for appeals and this Part has been recast in clause 40 of the Bill. The principal amendment proposed is to delete the powers of appeal against acquittal and appeal for the purpose of increasing sentence. These are powers which do not exist in the United Kingdom and they have been exercised only very occasionally in this Colony. Much of the procedure of appeal by way of case stated has been assimilated with that which is provided under sections 118A and B of the principal Ordinance. The proposed section 111 in clause 40 contains a provision that a magistrate prepare a statement of his findings on the facts and other grounds of his determination on appeals which are not by way of case stated which is intended to give the full benefit of the magistrate's conclusions in the hearing of the case to the parties and the judge on appeal and incidentally to reduce the time which is taken in the hearing of appeals. Clause 41 contains consequential amendments to the First Schedule.

21. (1) Provision made throughout the principal Ordinance for fines, costs and compensation are subject to maximum limits. These appear hopelessly inadequate, particularly in those cases where they have remained unaltered, possibly for a century and certainly since 1890. The table below shows the existing scale, the 1890 scale where applicable, and the scale proposed by the Bill. A remarks column is added to show the nature of the provision-

165