Page 184 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
181
of course, whether the Select Committee concerned will carry out a review to avoid the situation in which the same shop is prosecuted under three different ordinances. I consider that this will confuse the public. For example, we all know that the penalty for illegal parking is $320 and that it will not vary just because the location for parking is different, otherwise members of the public would be confused.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Mr. KAM, thank you for your views. Regarding the question of whether it is possible to take prosecution action under one single ordinance, if Members consider that there is such a need, the issue may be referred to the Select Committee concerned for discussion. However, I must point out that taking action under one single ordinance might give rise to more problems. In that case, say whenever Section 83B of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 was invoked, goods would also be forfeited. As I pointed out just now, apart from imposing a fine, the goods for sale will also be forfeited. This might bring about strong reaction from shops and others. We will pay attention to this in the review.
As to why it is stressed in the written reply that different ordinances apply to different situations, as far as I understand and from my conversation with the law-enforcing officers concerned, some shop-owners, as emphasized by the latter, would accept verbal advice. Initially they would only be verbally advised and charged of a minor offence under one of the ordinances, but they would be told that if they committed the offence again, they would be charged under an ordinance of a more serious nature. They are probably handling the problem of shop obstruction progressively. If Members do not agree to such an approach, the matter can be reviewed. That is all that I can tell you in reply. The issue will be referred to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for review.
As to the question of penalty and whether imprisonment is imposed, I do not remember the maximum fine clearly. As for imprisonment, I vaguely recall that someone was granted suspension of the imprisonment sentence. In that certain case, the defendant was eventually not required to go to jail. Of course I will refer the question to the legal advisor so that Mr. KAM will be clearly advised of the provisions of the ordinance. I don't have the information with me now and so, I cannot give a specific reply to Members.
Mr. Kam Nai-wai (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, as many reporters are present today, could the provisions on the maximum fine and liability to imprisonment under the three ordinances be released after the meeting for public information?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):--There shouldn't be any problem. We will distribute the information about the three ordinances to them after the meeting for their reference.
Page 184 of 606
Page 184 of 60
Page 184 of 60
Page 184 of 606
PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
181
of course, whether the Select Committee concerned will carry out a review to avoid the situation in which the same shop is prosecuted under three different ordinances. I consider that this will confuse the public. For example, we all know that the penalty for illegal parking is $320 and that it will not vary just because the location for parking is different, otherwise members of the public would be confused.
Chairman (in Cantonese):—Mr. KAM, thank you for your views. Regarding the question of whether it is possible to take prosecution action under one single ordinance, if Members consider that there is such a need, the issue may be referred to the Select Committee concerned for discussion. However, I must point out that taking action under one single ordinance might give rise to more problems. In that case, say whenever Section 83B of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132 was invoked, goods would also be forfeited. As I pointed out just now, apart from imposing a fine, the goods for sale will also be forfeited. This might bring about strong reaction from shops and others. We will pay attention to this in the review.
As to why it is stressed in the written reply that different ordinances apply to different situations, as far as I understand and from my conversation with the law-enforcing officers concerned, some shop-owners, as emphasized by the latter, would accept verbal advice. Initially they would only be verbally advised and charged of a minor offence under one of the ordinances, but they would be told that if they committed the offence again, they would be charged under an ordinance of a more serious nature. They are probably handling the problem of shop obstruction progressively. If Members do not agree to such an approach, the matter can be reviewed. That is all that I can tell you in reply. The issue will be referred to the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee for review.
As to the question of penalty and whether imprisonment is imposed, I do not remember the maximum fine clearly. As for imprisonment, I vaguely recall that someone was granted suspension of the imprisonment sentence. In that certain case, the defendant was eventually not required to go to jail. Of course I will refer the question to the legal advisor so that Mr. KAM will be clearly advised of the provisions of the ordinance. I don't have the information with me now and so, I cannot give a specific reply to Members.
Mr. Kam Nai-wal (in Cantonese);--Mr. Chairman, as many reporters are present today, could the provisions on the maximum fine and liability to imprisonment under the three ordinances be released after the meeting for public information?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):-There shouldn't be any problem. We will distribute the information about the three ordinances to them after the meeting for their reference.
Page 184 of 606
Page 184 of 60
Page 184 of 60
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.