TNAG-1555-FCO40-2119-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 124

(a)

71

as they affect punters the use of a recognisance, specifically prohibiting illegal gambling. This would involve a magistrate binding over the person to be of good behaviour with a

recognisance of say, $5,000. The "good behaviour" could be limited to

refraining from illegal gambling;

(b) as they affect operators, managers or

bookmakers,

(i)

(ii)

section 7 of the Gambling Ordinance [that concerned to penalise bookmaking] could be amended by the creation of a rebuttable presumption that an individual found in a premise, a vehicle or a vessel where illegal bookmaking is taking place, is engaged in bookmaking. Thus the burden of proof would be thrown on the individual. The danger of the presumption operating against punters is minimal as punters are very rarely found in illegal book-making centres;

section 7 of the Gambling

Ordinance could be amended to provide for a mandatory prison sentence of, say, two years for a second conviction. Thus anyone convicted of running or assisting in running a bookmaking operation, upon second

conviction, would be put in

prison for two years, or whatever mandatory sentence is included in the law;

(iii) section 5 of the Gambling

(iv)

Ordinance [dealing with operating a gambling establishment] could also be amended as in (ii) above;

section 27 could be amended to provide for substantially higher penalties for obstructing a police officer. The usual method of obstruction is to bar entry. Also, a rebuttable presumption could operate that, where an individual obstructs a police officer in these circumstances, he is presumed to be assisting in illegal bookmaking or gambling and hence becomes liable to the considerably harsher penalties under section 7;