XN000022-1978-06-21 — Page 16

14

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1978

YEED FOR CLARITY IN DETERMINING A YOUNG OFFENDER'S AGE

*****

UNOFFICIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLOR, THE HON. PETER C. WONG, TODAY SUGGESTED THAT AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE MADE IN LEGISLATION FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF AN OFFENDER'S AGE IN ORDINANCES DEALING WITH JUVENILE DELINQUENTS.

SPEAKING AT THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE DETENTION CENTRES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1978, HE SAID THE WORD +APPARENTLY+ WAS LOOSE AND IMPRECISE IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS USED IN A SECTION OF THE AMENDING LEGISLATION WHICH READS +IN MAKING A DETENTION ORDER AGAINST A PERSON THE COURT SHALL STATE IN SUCH ORDER WHETHER SUCH PERSON IS APPARENTLY UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE OR APPARENTLY OF OR OVER 21 YEARS OF AGE.+

HE ALSO OBJECTED TO THIS SECTION BECAUSE THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES LAID DOWN TO ASSIST THE COURT IN REACHING A DECISION AS TO AN OFFENDER'S AGE.

MR. WONG SAID OTHER ORDINANCES SUFFERING SIMILAR DEFICIENCIES INCLUDE THE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ORDINANCE, THE JUVENILE OFFENDERS

AND THE REFORMATORY ORDINANCE, THE TRAINING CENTRES ORDINANCE SCHOOLS ORDINANCE.

+THE LIST IS BY NO MEANS EXHAUSTIVE BUT IT DOES SERVE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A CASE FOR A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE PROBLEM,

+ONE SIMPLE AND PAINLESS WAY TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESULT IS TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION OF THE WORD +AGE+ IN THE INTERPRETATION AND THE GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE, HE SAID.

MR. WONG ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE NEED TO DTERMINE A PERSON'S AGE CAREFULLY CANNOT BE OVER-EMPHASISED BUT ITS CONSEQUENCES MAY BE GRAVE AND RAMIFICATIONS MANY,

/15