TNAG-0955-FCO40-1174-Legislation-for-traffic-on-roads-in-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 233

For information

ANNEX B TC XOR(80)65

Xcci(79) 11. Copy No

1.

NOTE FOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Road Traffic Ordinance

(Chapter 220)

H.E. the Acting Governor requested this paper be

provided.

2.

Sir S. Y. Chung C.B.E., J.P. raised on 19 June 1979 the problem of persons who avoid prosecution for traffic offences by refusing to give their names when required by law to do so, and the level of fines currently levied for such conduct. He had in mind a particular case mentioned on 'Open Line'.

BACKGROUND

3. Section 29 of Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap 220) provides in essence that where the driver of any vehicle is suspected of having committed a moving traffic offence (as opposed to parking etc.), the vehicle owner (or any suspected driver) can be required to give the name, address, etc., of the person driving at the particular time.

4. Failure to give such information is an offence carrying a fine of up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for 6 months. There is a defence available if the accused shows he did not know nor could he with reasonable diligence have ascertained any aspect of the information required.

5. (i) About 50% of S.29 requests are properly replied to by the vehicle owner.

(ii) In 1977 there were 446 prosecutions for failure to comply and in 1978 there were 851 prosecutions.

(iii) About 50% of those prosecuted satisfy the Court that they are within the defence proviso and so are acquitted.

(iv) The average penalty imposed on conviction is in the region of $150.

6. The underlying offences leading to S.29 requests include allegations of dangerous driving, failing to stop after an accident, taxi offences such as failing to proceed by the most direct route to the stated destination, speeding and the like. The C.S.O. (Traffic) is at the moment conducting a survey to see which, if any, underlying offences are predominant.