TNAG-1364-FCO40-1810-Hong-Kong-Hansard-reports-and-minutes-of-the-meetings-of-the-1986 — Page 46

Question 3

Reply to Question by Hon. Martin LEE

in LegCo on 4/12/85

Question:

With regard to the provisions relating to penalties and disqualification from driving contained in the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, and the Road

Traffic (Driving Offence Points) Ordinance, Cap. 375, will the Administration please clarify the following:

(a) who decides which procedure should

be followed in any particular case;

(b)

(c)

whether there is any confusion.

(particularly in relation to "speeding" offence) occasioned by the availability of 2 different procedures resulting in different penalties and consequential disqualification provided by these 2 Ordinances;

whether it is desirable and in the interest of uniformity to provide by law as to when a particular procedure will be adopted and not the other.

Secretary for Transport

Sir,

There are two procedures for dealing with offences under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374). In all cases, a prosecution may be commenced by the laying of an information in respect of an offence and the matter proceeds to trial before a magistrate in the ordinary way. There is, however, an alternative procedure under the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240) in respect of certain specified offences, including speeding. Under this Ordinance, a fixed penalty notice may be issued to the alleged offender who may pay the fixed penalty or elect to

have the case tried before a magistrate.

In practice, although the Attorney General has the overall responsibility for prosecuting offences, the decision as to which procedure should be used is exercised by a police officer. The decision is based

/on