TNAG-0259-FCO40-295-Legislation-for-prevention-of-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 148

15

By clause 20, if a defendant wishes to dispute the complaint, he shall, at the outset, be asked to state the nature of his defence. If he does not, at this stage, expressly dispute the contents of the certificates to which I have referred, he cannot afterwards do so. If he does indicate that he wants to dispute them, then the magistrate may either hear the case forthwith or he may adjourn it so that the necessary evidence of these disputed matters can be obtained.

The powers which are contained in clauses 18 to 21 to hear pro- ceedings ex parte and to prove the offence by the production of various documents should make it possible to deal much more quickly and economically, but without undue prejudice to registered owners, with contraventions occurring which may arise under the bill. There should be a very substantial saving of the time of the Police Force, members of which will no longer be obliged attend court to prove matters which are essentially of a formal nature or are not disputed. At the conclusion of any proceedings for the recovery of a penalty, the magistrate may, if a complaint is dismissed, make an order for the payment of costs by the complainant of between $20 and $400.

If, on the other hand, an order for payment of the fixed penalty is made, the magistrate is obliged to make an order for the payment of costs of not less than $20 nor more than $400, he will also issue an order directing the Commissioner for Transport not to register any change of ownership of the vehicle or to license the vehicle, unless the defendant has paid within 24 hours from the making of the order.

An order of this nature will cease to have effect if the defendant produces to the Commissioner for Transport a receipt showing that he has paid the penalty and costs or if the defendant sells the vehicle to a new owner and the new owner is in possession of a certificate issued by the Commissioner for Transport to the effect that no valid court order exists in relation to that vehicle. The latter provision is necessary because, where a stop order is in force against a vehicle, a purchaser would be unable to transfer it into his name on the register and also might find that, after he had bought it, it was seized to meet `a penalty incurred by the previous owner. To safeguard the interests of bona fide purchasers, therefore, clause 22(4) provides that a pro- spective purchaser can obtain a certificate from the Commissioner for Transport that no stop order is outstanding against the vehicle, and he may complete the sale and register the vehicle even if a stop order is made in the meantime, so long as he registers the transfer within 72 hours of the issue of the certificate.

If the defendant fails within one month to pay the amount of the fixed penalty and any costs awarded against him, the magistrate may make an order empowering the Commissioner of Police to seize the vehicle. It may then be removed and detained by him until the amount