Page 13 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Nevertheless, experience has shown that arrest action generally tends to be more effective a deterrent for hawker control purposes than the issuing of summonses. Hence, arrest action is the predominant method currently adopted by General Duties Teams (GDT) staff for hawker control purposes.
As regards the control of itinerant hawker licensees, the present operational tactics are that if they are found causing obstruction, GDT staff will usually give prior warnings in order to try to disperse them. This would be followed by arrests action if such warnings were unheeded. These tactics have proved to be generally effective for a number of reasons. Firstly, most itinerant hawker licensees usually tend to ply their business in busy streets and street corners where obstruction can become a serious problem. In tackling this problem, the key advantage of arrest action over summonses is that hawkers will be immediately removed from the scene of offence, thus completely disrupting their trading and causing major inconvenience to them. In addition, the successful rate of summonses is comparatively much lower than arrests. It is a known fact that hawkers would prefer to be summonsed rather than arrested. However, it is not the Department's practice to take action to suit the preference of such hawkers.
In view of the above, the Department will continue to apply operational tactics flexibly and will take appropriate enforcement action both in the form of summonses and arrests depending on the ground situation and resources available.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—Again, I have four supplementary questions and perhaps it will be convenient to ask them all at the same time.
The first supplementary is that Mr. IP says at the end of his answer at the end of paragraph 5, 'it is a known fact that hawkers would prefer to be summonsed rather than arrested. However, it is not the Department's practice to take action to suit the preference of such hawkers'. But these hawkers are licensed, licences cost money, so why do we not take or have regard at least to their preference?
The second question is if in fact licence hawkers get arrested or mainly arrested just like unlicensed, what is the use of licences at all?
And the third question is that I do not understand when Mr. IP says 'in addition, the successful rate of summonses is comparatively much lower than arrests', why would that be?
And the final question is he says the GDT staff will usually give prior warnings in order to try to disperse them". What is the real meaning of 'usually' and why not always and not just usually?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. IP, do you get all the questions?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—Thank you Mr. BERNACCHI for the series of questions.
For the first question, that has to do with the preference of hawkers. Well, when departmental staff take actions they do not take particular note of the preferences of the hawkers on whether they want to be summonsed or arrested. Departmental staff pay particular attention to do away with obstruction to the street. The main objective of GDT staff is to remove the itinerant hawkers licensees who take up busy streets and to eliminate the nuisance caused by them. If we only summonsed them, they may continue plying their business and the problem cannot be solved. So our practice is to arrest them so that they can be removed from the scene of offence.
The second question concerns the same treatments to licensed and unlicensed hawkers so what is the point of getting a licence. Recently in our review we have covered this issue. At the recent MST and SCWC meetings we have amended some bylaws to delete itinerant hawker licences because IHLs are no longer suitable for a modern, bustling and busy city like Hong Kong. I would also like to supplement that the treatments imposed on itinerant hawker licensees and unlicensed hawkers are different. When the latter are prosecuted, all their goods will be confiscated. For licensed itinerant hawkers, they will only be fined. So there is a difference with regard to treatment.
Thirdly, with regard to successful rate, when we issue summonses, some offenders might have moved to a new address so they might not be successfully prosecuted. Just like unlawful parking of vehicles, motorists are not always successfully prosecuted. So the same applies to our actions taken against hawkers. It is obvious that the successful rate of summons is low when compared with that of arrest action.
Lastly, with regard to the word 'usually' I think this is just a matter of wording. I think it is the normal practice for warnings to be given first, then followed by arrest action.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): I have just two supplementaries.
Does Mr. IP mean that 'usually' to use his own word, 'usually' the arrests are confined to busy streets and the summonses are served otherwise. And in respect to question No. c) that is to say why is it that the successful rate of summonses is comparatively much lower than arrests? He means it is difficult to serve the summonses because the hawkers have changed their address. If that is so, then surely the summonses can be served when the hawkers come to renew his licence.
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer to the first question is 'yes'.
For the second question, it is one of the options that may serve the purpose when some day hawkers want to have his licence renewed. But experience has shown that in the process of serving the summonses, other human factors with loophole may have bearing on the case e.g. registration being undertaken. If we look at records the successful rate with regard to prosecutions by summonses is not 100%. In the past, 340 summonses were issued but only 170 were successfully heard in the court.
Page 13 of 132
Page 13 of 132
Page 13 of 132
23
22
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Neverthelss, experience has shown that arrest action generally tends to be more effective a deterrent for hawker control purposes than the issuing of summonses. Hence, arrest action is the predominant method currently adopted by General Duties Terms (GDT) staff for hawker control purposes.
As regards the control of itinerant hawker licensees, the present operational tactics are that if they are found causing obstruction, GDT staff will usually give prior warnings in order to try to disperse them. This would be followed by arrests action if such warnings were unheeded. These tactics have proved to be generally effective for a number of reasons. Firstly, most itinerant hawker licensees usually tend to ply their business in busy streets and street corners where obstruction can become a serious problem. In tackling this problem, the key advantage of arrest action over summonses is that hawkers will be immediately removed from the scene of offence, thus completely disrupting their trading and causing major inconvenience to them. In addition, the successful rate of summonses is comparatively much lower than arrests. It is a known fact that hawkers would prefer to be summonsed rather than arrested. However, it is not the Department practice to take action to suit the preference of such hawkers.
In view of the above, the Department will continue to apply operational tactics flexibly and will take appropriate enforcement action both in the form of summonses and arrests depending on the ground situation and resources available.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—Again, I have four supplementary questions and perhaps it will be convenient to ask them all at the same time.
The first supplementary is that Mr. IP says at the end of his answer at the end of paragraph 5, 'it is a known fact that hawkers would prefer to be summonsed rather than arrested. However, it is not the Department's practice to take action to suit the preference of such hawkers'. But these hawkers are licensed, licences cost money, so why do we not take or have regard at least to their preference?
The second question is if in fact licence hawkers get arrested or mainly arrested just like unlicensed, what is the use of licences at all?
And the third question is that I do not understand when Mr. IP says 'in addition, the successful rate of summonses is comparatively much lower than arrests', why would that be?
And the final question is he says the USD staff will usually give prior warnings in order to try to disperse them". What is the real meaning of 'usually' and why not always and not just usually?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. IP, do you get all the questions?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Thank you Mr. BERNACCHI for the series of questions.
Page 13 of 132
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
For the first question, that has to do with the preference of hawkers. Well, when departmental staff take actions they do not take particular note of the preferences of the hawkers on whether they want to be summonsed or arrested. Departmental staff pay particular attention to do away with obstruction to the street. The main objective of GDT staff is to remove the itinerant hawkers licensees who take up busy streets and to eliminate the nuisance caused by them. If we only summonse them, they may continue plying the business and the problem cannot be solved. So our practice is to arrest them so that they can be removed from the scene of offence.
The second question concerns the same treatments to licensed and unlicensed hawkers so what is the point of getting a licence. Recently in our review we have covered this issue. At the recent MST and SCWC meetings we have amended some bylaws to delete itinerant hawker licences because IHLs are no longer suitable for a modern, bustling and busy city like Hong Kong. I would also like to supplement that the treatments imposed on itinerant hawker licensees and unlicensed hawkers are different. When the latter are prosecuted, all their goods will be confiscated. For licensed itinerant hawkers, they will only be fined. So there is a difference with regard to treatment.
Thirdly, with regard to successful rate, when we issue summonses, some offenders might have moved to a new address so they might not be successfully prosecuted. Just like unlawful parking of vehicles, motorists are not always successfully prosecuted. So the same applies to our actions taken against hawkers. It is obvious that the successful rate of summons is low when compared with that of arrest action.
Lastly, with regard to the word 'usually' I think this is just a matter of wording. I think it is the normal practice for warnings to be given first, then followed by arrest action.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): I have just two supplementaries.
Does Mr. IP mean that 'usually' to use his own word, 'usually' the arrests are confined to busy streets and the summonses are served otherwise. And in respect to three question No. c) that is to say why is it that the successful rate of summonses is comparatively much lower than arrests? He means it is difficult to serve the summonses because the hawkers have changed their address. If that is so, then surely the summonses can be served when the hawkers come to renew his licence.
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer to the first question is 'yes'.
For the second question, it is one of the option that may serve the purpose when some day hawkers want to have his licence renewed. But experience has shown that in the process of serving the summonses, other human factors with loophole may have bearing on the case e.g. registration being undertaken. If we look at records the successful rate with regard to prosecutions by summonses is not 100%. In the past, 340 summonses were issued but only 170 were successfully heard in the court.
Page 13 of 132
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.