XN000022-1979-07-04 — Page 10

8

WEDNESDAY, JULY 4, 1979

CALL FOR A REVIEW ON IMPRISONMENT OVER DEBTS

******

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON. JOHN GRIFFITHS TODAY (WEDNESDAY) PROPOSED TO INSTITUTE A REVIEW AIMED AT ENSURING THAT WHILE THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPRISONMENT REMAINS AS A DETERRENT TO THE DISHONEST OR THE UNDULY EXTRAVAGANT DEBTOR. NEVERTHELESS IMPRISONMENT FOR HOWEVER SHORT A TIME CAN ONLY TAKE PLACE IN SUCH CASES.

MR. GRIFFITHS WAS SPEAKING ON A MOTION THAT +POVERTY IS NOT A CRIME+ MOVED IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BY THE HON. PETER C. WONG.

+THIS REVIEW WOULD ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE ARE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, NOT ONLY ENGLAND BUT ELSEWHERE TOO, OTHER EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING DEBTS, INCLUDING MATRIMONIAL MAINTENANCE, WHICH COULD APPROPRIATELY BE ADOPTED FOR USE IN HONG KONG, MR. GRIFFITHS SAID,

THE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE A CREDITOR IS REQUIRED TO PAY TO MAINTAIN A DEBTOR IN PRISON, AT A MAXIMUM OF $30 A DAY, WOULD ALSO BE LOOKED INTO WITH A VIEW TO RAISING IT, SHOULD ÍT PROVE TO BE TOO LOW, HE SAID.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE POWER OF IMPRISONMENT OF DEBTORS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A LARGE PROBLEM.

IN 1977 AND 1978 RESPECTIVELY, 99 AND 85 PERSONS ALTOGETHER WERE IMPRISONED, AND ONLY 12 PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON AT THE MOMENT.

SINCE 1974 ONLY FOUR PERSONS HAVE IN FACT SPENT 12 MONTHS IN PRISON. THE DEBTS IN THEIR CASES WERE $630,000, $90,000, $880,000 AND $190,000.

MR. GRIFFITHS EMPHASISED THAT IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT WILL ONLY BE RESORTED TO AFTER ALL OTHER AVENUES HAVE BEEN EXPLORED AND WHEN IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT THE DEBTOR IS A RECALCITRANT CASE WHO POSSESSES THE MEANS TO PAY, BUT NOT THE INCLINATION TO DO SO.

HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHILE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR CAN BE IMPRISONED FOR VARYING PERIODS OF BETWEEN ONE MONTH AND 12 MONTHS, DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT, THE DEBTOR MAY AT ANY TIME MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COURT TO BE RELEASED.

WHEN THE APPLICATION IS MADE, THE DEBTOR MUST BE RELEASED UNLESS THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR SUCCEEDS IN PROVING ONE OF THREE THINGS: EITHER, FIRST, THAT THE DEBTOR'S INABILITY TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEBTOR'S UNJUSTIFIABLE EXTRAVAGANCE IN LIVING OR, SECOND, THAT HE SEEKS TO AVOID PAYING THE DEBT BY WILFULLY AND DELIBERATELY CONCEDED HIS PROPERTY FROM HIS CREDITOR- OR, THIRD, THAT TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF HIS DEBT HE HAS FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED TO, SAY HIS WIFE, OR SOME OTHER PERSONS, AGAIN WITH THE DELIBERATE OBJECT OF AVOIDING PAYMENT OR COMMITTED SOME OTHER ACT OF BAD FAITH TO AVOID PAYMENT,

/+THE SORDEN

Page 10Page 11