XN000022-1986-07-09 — Page 43

40

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1986

MR CHENG REVEALED THAT THE ANOMALY WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF UMELCO MEMBERS IN OCTOBER LAST YEAR BY THE MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION, AND AN AD HOC GROUP WAS FORMED TO EXAMINE THE PROBLEM.

HE SAID THAT THE GROUP MET THE ADMINISTRATION ON TWO OCCASIONS TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED RECTIFICATION OF THE ANOMALY AND THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION OF ARRANGING RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION TO EXONERATE AFFECTED DRIVERS,

+AFTER LENGTHY AND COMPLICATED DISCUSSIONS WE WERE GENERALLY SATISFIED THAT ANY ATTEMPT AT RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION WOULD AMOUNT TO AN INTERFERENCE IN PROPERLY-PASSED JUDICIAL SENTENCES AND WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN ALLOWING BACK ON THE ROADS WITHOUT A RETEST A NUMBER OF DRIVERS WHO WERE NOT FIT TO DRIVE,+ HE SAID.

+WE THEREFORE RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTED THAT RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO HAD ONLY COMMITTED MINOR OFFENCES, WAS NOT A SENSIBLE SOLUTION, HE ADDED,

EARLIER, MR CHENG SAID IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT SECTION 41 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE, WHICH PROVIDED FOR A FINE OF UP TO $4 000 AND POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION UNDER ANOTHER SECTION, MUST STILL EXIST FOR EXCEPTIONAL CASES AND FOR VERY SERIOUS OFFENCES.

HOWEVER, HE SAID HE WOULD LIKE THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE A CLEAR ACCOUNT TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF WHAT KIND OF CASES SECTION 41 OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE USED FOR AND AN ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE USED IN CASES WHERE THE FIXED PENALTY ORDINANCE COULD NOT BE APPLIED.

ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLOR, THE HON RICHARD LAI, POINTED OUT THAT THE ANOMALIES WHICH CAME TO EXIST BETWEEN THE TRAFFIC ORDINANCES WERE THE RESULTS OF OVERSIGHTS ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

IN THE ENSUING CONFUSION, MR LAI SAID HE FELT THAT THE PUBLIC WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE SEVERITY OF PENALTIES LIKELY TO BE INCURRED EVEN FOR MINOR SPEEDING OFFENCES, AND THAT THE POLICE HAD TOO FREE A HAND IN DECIDING WHICH PENALTY WAS APPROPRIATE FOR A GIVEN OFFENCE.

HE SAID IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR GUIDELINES AN OFFENDER COULD BE PENALISED EITHER WITH PENALTY POINTS OR WITH DISQUALIFICATION DEPENDING UPON WHICH LAW THE POLICE CHOSE TO APPLY.

+THE ROAD TRAFFIC ORDINANCE WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR SERIOUS SPEEDING OFFENCES AND NOT, AS BECAME COMMON PRACTICE, FOR REPEATED MINOR OFFENCES, HE NOTED.

/BECAUSE OF