XN000022-1987-01-07 — Page 23

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1987

21

INERTIA-SELLING MADE ILLEGAL

*****

THE POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1986, WHICH WILL SERVE BOTH TO DETER SWINDLERS WITHIN HONG KONG FROM ENGAGING IN INERTIA-SELLING AND TO PROTECT BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS FROM FALLING VICTIM TO INERTIA-SELLING SCHEMES ORIGINATING FROM OVERSEAS, WAS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, THE HON SELINA CHOW SAID THE BILL'S MOST IMPORTANT PROVISION WAS CREATION OF A NEW OFFENCE OUTLAWING THE PRACTICE OF INERTIA-SELLING PERPETRATED THROUGH SENDING BILLS AND INVOICES FOR UNSOLICITED GOODS OR SERVICES.

MRS CHOW SAID THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS TO THE CONSUMER COUNCIL AND THE POLICE ABOUT BILLS BEING RECEIVED FROM OVERSEAS FOR UNSOLICITED ENTRIES IN TRADE DIRECTORIES, BUT INERTIA-SELLING SCHEMES ORIGINATING WITHIN HONG KONG HAD NOT BEEN VERY COMMON.

HOWEVER, SHE NOTED THAT THE BILL WOULD ALSO ENABLE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST UNSOLICITED BILLS COMING FROM OVERSEAS BY EXERCISING HIS EXISTING POWERS UNDER THE POST OFFICE ORDINANCE TO STOP, INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY DETAIN INCOMING MAIL SUSPECTED OF CONTRAVENING THE ORDINANCE.

IN MAKING INERTIA-SELLING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN HONG KONG, MRS CHOW EXPLAINED THAT THE BILL WOULD ALSO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE AUTHORITIES IN A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST THOSE WHO SENT THE OFFENDING BILLS TO ADDRESSES IN HONG KONG, BECAUSE OF THEIR RECIPROCAL REGISTRATION.

MRS CHOW ADDED THAT THE LEGCO AD HOC GROUP WHICH STUDIED THE BILL WAS CONCERNED THAT WHILE THE NEW OFFENCE CARRIED HEAVY MAXIMUM PENALTIES NO ALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE FOR REASONABLE EXCUSE AND THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF MENS REA.

THIS MEANT THAT IF A PERSON POSTED A BILL IN THE MISTAKEN BUT GENUINE BELIEF THAT GOODS OR SERVICES HAD BEEN ORDERED BY THE ADDRESSEE HE WOULD BE JUST AS GUILTY AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE MOST DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC INERTIA-SELLING SCHEME, EVEN THOUGH HIS REASON FOR SENDING THE BILL WAS AN INNOCENT ONE.

SIMILARLY, ANY VARIATION, HOWEVER SLIGHT, IN THE WORDING REQUIRED TO BE PRINTED ON A DOCUMENT POSTED IN RESPECT OF UNSOLICITED GOODS OR SERVICES WOULD MAKE THE SENDER OF THE DOCUMENT LIABLE TO PROSECUTION, SHE SAID,

MRS CHOW SAID THE AD HOC GROUP THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL WERE NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE OFFENCE FROM AN ABSOLUTE OFFENCE TO ONE IN WHICH THE COURT HAD FULL AND CLEAR DISCRETION TO ACQUIT A PERSON WHO HAD BROKEN THE LAW THROUGH AN INNOCENT MISUNDERSTANDING OR A CARELESS MISTAKE OVER WORDING.

THE AMENDMENTS,