XN000022-1996-04-24 — Page 30

16 -

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill 1995

Following is the speech by the Secretary for Security, Mr Peter Lai, in resuming the second reading of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill 1995 in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):

Mr President,

I should like to thank the Chairman, the Honourable Selina Chow, and other Members of the Bills Committee for their thorough and careful study of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill 1995. I also like to thank the Honourable Margaret Ng for her speech supporting the Bill. All the Committee Stage Amendments which I am going to move have been discussed and agreed by the Bills Committee.

This Bill, which was introduced into this Council in November last year, seeks to expand the scope of the rehabilitation scheme under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, so that more people who have committed minor offences can benefit. The current scheme provides that where a person, on a first conviction, is not sentenced to imprisonment or a fine exceeding $5,000, the conviction can be "spent" after three years so long as the offender has no further conviction. Now the person concerned is permitted to say nothing about his spent conviction in his business and social dealings, such as in application for jobs, hire purchase and the like. Moreover, the person cannot lawfully be refused employment or admission to a profession on account of his spent conviction.

We propose to expand the current rehabilitation scheme by raising the sentence limit, so as to cover any first-time offender who is sentenced to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three months. We also propose that persons who have been convicted of minor triad-related offences, but have subsequently renounced their triad membership under the Triad Renunciation Scheme, should be covered by the rehabilitation scheme if they meet the requisite criteria.

In the course of examining the Bill, the Bills Committee has expressed concern about the effect of a spent conviction on a prospective emigrant. I should in this context wish to point out that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance does not have extra-territorial effect, and cannot seek to override any law of a foreign country which requires applicants for emigration to disclose all criminal convictions. Within Hong Kong, an applicant's failure to disclose a spent conviction would be lawful, but whether or not he would be protected in the foreign country concerned would depend on the law of that country.

L

Page 30Page 31