XN000022-1979-07-04 — Page 9

7

WEDNESDAY, JULY 4, 1979

BESIDES, CONSIDERING THE TIME AND LABOUR OF JUDGES, CLERICAL STAFF AND BAILIFFS INVOLVED IN THE CASES AND THE COST OF IMPRISONMENT. THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY ALLOWANCE THE CREDITOR IS REQUIRED TO PAY TO MAINTAIN THE DEBTOR IN PRISON, AT A MAXIMUM OF $30 PER DAY, IS APPARENTLY INSUFFICIENT.

+1 IS HARDLY FAIR TO EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO FINANCE THE ATTEMPTS BY CREDITORS TO RECOVER THEIR DEBTS IN THIS MANNER, HE SAID.

FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH ANY SUBSIDY BY THE CROWN IS NOT RECOVERABLE, A CREDITOR IS ABLE TO RECOVER FROM THE DEBTOR ALL SUMS HE INCURRED IN IMPRISONING HIM.

INCIDENTALLY, MR. WONG ADDED, THE ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT MAY HELP EASE THE STRAIN ON OUR CONGESTED PRISONS.

MR. WONG OUTLINED THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ENGLISH LAW RELATING TO CIVIL DEBTS AND POINTED OUT THAT AFTER SEVERAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAW, IMPRISONMENT FOR CIVIL DEBT IS NOW VIRTUALLY ABOLISHED THERE, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, SUCH AS MAINTENANCE ORDERS AND CROWN DEBTS.

IN HONG KONG HOWEVER, A DEBTOR CAN BE IMPRISONED FOR A PERIOD UP TO A YEAR, OR SIX MONTHS IF THE DEBT IS LESS THAN $1,000, THREE MONTHS IF LESS THAN $500, AND ONE MONTH IF LESS THAN $100.

THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN HONG KONG SIMILAR TO A 1671 ACT OF PARLIAMENT UNDER WHICH THE PRISONER WOULD BE DISCHARGED IF HE SWORE BEFORE A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE THAT HE HAD NO ESTATE ABOVE THE VALUE OF 10 POUNDS STERLING AND THAT HE HAD NOT DISPOSED OF HIS ESTATE TO DEFRAUD HIS CREDITORS, PROVIDED THAT HIS OATH WAS NOT DISPROVED BY HIS CREDITOR.

+NEVERTHELESS, IT IS FRIGHTENING TO KNOW THAT IF A PERSON OWES LESS THAN $100, HE MAY BE IMPRISONED FOR A MONTH, MR. WONG SAID.

THE HONG KONG LAW ALSO PROVIDES THAT IN CASES WHERE THE COURT IS SATISFIED THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR BELIEVING THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY LEAVE THE JURISDICTION, IT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT TO BRING HIM BEFORE THE COURT TO GIVE EXPLANATION, AND IF HE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COURT ORDER HE MAY BE COMMITTED TO PRISON.

MR. WONG POINTED OUT THAT THIS PROVISION IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN

IN ENGLISH LAW AND NEEDS TO BE REVISED.

HE THOUGHT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT 100 YEARS AGO BUT NOT IN OUR RELATIVELY ADVANCED AND SOPHISTICATED COMMUNITY TODAY.

APART FROM DEBTS OWED TO THE CROWN OR TO ONE'S SPOUSE IN THE FORM OF MAINTENANCE PAYMENT, BECAUSE THE SOLIDARITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE UPHELD EVEN AT A PRICE,+ ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL DEBTS SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN BY INVOKING IMPRISONMENT, HE SAID.

HE SUGGESTED THAT AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE BE DEVISED, PERHAPS ALONG THE LINES LAID DOWN BY THE ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ACT 1971.

18