XN000022-1996-11-13 — Page 36

25

–

Alleged gas cylinder mislabelling case explained

Following is a question by the Hon Leong Che-hung and a written reply by the Attorney General, the Hon Jeremy Mathews, in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):

Question:

It was reported that the Legal Department recently dropped the charges against the Hong Kong Oxygen and Acetylene Company for mislabelling a gas cylinder. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a)

of the reasons for the Legal Department dropping the charges;

(b)

(c)

how the above "mislabelling" incident was discovered; and

whether the above "mislabelling" incident has caused injuries to persons or damages to properties?

Reply:

Mr President,

(a)

On 5 June 1996, a summons was laid against the Hong Kong Oxygen and Acetylene Company under section 10(a) of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295). That section creates a summary offence, and proceedings in respect of it must be commenced within 6 months from the time an offence occurs. The summons alleged that the company had sent to a customer an acetylene cylinder, on which the true name or description of the contents was not distinctly marked.

It was subsequently discovered that the date on which the cylinder was sent, and therefore the date of the alleged offence, was 18 April 1995. Proceedings in respect of that alleged offence were therefore time-barred before the summons was issued and, indeed, before the alleged mislabelling was discovered. In the circumstances, the prosecution offered no evidence in respect of the charge. The Administration is considering whether to propose a change to the law so that, in future, similar cases could be prosecuted.