TNAG-1607-FCO40-22122-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 291

2

The LegCo Ad Hoc Group which was formed to study the Bill were concerned that, while the new offence carries heavy maximum penalties of a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for 3 years, no allowance has been made for reasonable excuse and there is no requirement of mens rea: this means that if a person posts a bill in the mistaken but genuine belief that goods or services have been ordered by the addressee he will be just as guilty as the perpetrator of the most deliberate and systematic inertia-selling scheme, even though his reason for

Similarly, any variation, sending the bill is an innocent one. however slight, in the wording required to be printed on a document posted in respect of unsolicited goods or services will make the sender of the document liable to prosecution. have therefore concluded that two amendments are necessary to change the offence from an absolute offence to one in which the Court has full and clear discretion to acquit a person who has broken the law through an innocent misunderstanding or a

careless mistake over wording.

The amendments, which make

allowance for reasonable excuse and for flexibility in the prescribed wording on the document, will be moved in the Committee Stage of the Bill by Mrs Rita FAN.

We

Sir, the Bill will serve both to deter swindlers

within Hong Kong from engaging in this profitable but dishonest trade and to protect businesses and individuals in Hong Kong