XN000022-1994-04-29 — Page 15

13

FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1994

THE

CONSIDERED

BILL PROPOSES

THAT'

THESE

TO SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE AND SHOULD BE

PROVISIONS ARE NO LONGER

REPEALED.

ΤΟ EMPOWERED

IMPOSE

ALSO SUGGESTS IT

THAT MAGISTRATES BE HIGHER FINES AND AWARD HIGHER COMPENSATION.

MAY

BE IS, FINE OF OR

THE

THE CURRENT MAXIMUM PENALTY WHICH SPOKESMAN SAID IMPOSED BY MAGISTRATES WHEN TRYING INDICTABLE OFFENCES SUMMARILY FOR A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS OR A $5,000 AND, FOR A PERMANENT MAGISTRATE, IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO YEARS A FINE OF $10,000.

"THESE MAXIMUM FINES WERE LAST ADJUSTED IN 1981. THEY SHOULD BE REVISED TO $50,000 AND $100,000 RESPECTIVELY, HE SAID.

MAXIMUM

A COMPENSATION A MAGISTRATE MAY ORDER THE

CONVICTED FROM $5,000 PERSON TO PAY TO AN AGGRIEVED PERSON WILL ALSO BE RAISED, TO $100,000; WHILE THE SUMMARY COMPENSATION A MAGISTRATE MAY AWARD A

OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WILL BE INCREASED FROM VICTIM $10,000.

$2,000

ΤΟ

ΤΟ

THE CURRENT AMOUNTS RESPECTIVELY.

LAST WERE

REVISED

IN 1972 AND

1981

WHICH ORDINANCE

THE BILL ALSO PROPOSES THAT THE FOLLOWING SIX PROVISIONS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE FORMALLY REPEALED:

* SECTION

RATHER

THAN

28(C),

A

THEFT ORDINANCE EMPOWERS A POLICE OFFICER,

SEARCH JUDICIAL OFFICER, TO AUTHORISE A

OF PREMISES FOR STOLEN GOODS AND TO DO SO WITHOUT THE NEED TO ΤΟ ESTABLISH

APPLIES REASONABLE GROUNDS, THE PROVISION ONLY PREMISES OCCUPIED OR WHICH HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED BY A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF HANDLING STOLEN GOODS;

MANDATORY OPERATE

* SECTION

ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR TWO 29(6)(A), THEFT

THE CONTRARY PRESUMPTIONS, "UNTIL

ΤΟ IS PROVED", AGAINST A PERSON ACCUSED OF CERTAIN OFFENCES INVOLVING THE DISHONESTY USE OF CHEQUES;

* SECTION 83XX(3)(A), CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE FORBIDS THE AWARD OF COSTS TO AN APPELLANT WHERE A RETRIAL IS ORDERED. THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS DECLARED THAT THIS PROVISION INCONSISTENT WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS;

IS

OFFENCE

STOLEN

* SECTION 30, SUMMARY OFFENCES ORDINANCE, CREATING THE

OF BEING A

OR CONVEYING PERSON SUSPECTED OF HAVING PROPERTY, WAS DECLARED REPEALED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL BY VIRTUE OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS;

AN OFFENCE WITHOUT REASONABLE

* SECTION 8(D), SUMMARY OFFENCES ORDINANCE CREATES

FOR PEOPLE TO ASSEMBLE IN THE NIGHT-TIME EXCUSE OR FAILING TO REPORT SUCH AN ASSEMBLY; AND

SECTION 4(4)