Replies to LegCo questions

LCQ11: Fixed Penalty of Public cleanliness offences

Following is a question by the Hon Albert Chan and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, Dr York Chow, in the Legislative Council today (October 26):

Question:

Recently, I have received many complaints from elderly persons that they had been caught by law enforcement officers and fined $1,500 when they left rubbish in public places inadvertently. As they have limited means and many of them even have to live on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), they have difficulty in paying the fine. Furthermore, it has been reported that if CSSA recipients decline to pay the fine on grounds of inadequate means, the authorities may subject them to community service orders (CSOs) in lieu. Should the persons concerned feel aggrieved, they may request the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to refer their cases to the court for adjudication. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) issued, and the total amount of fines collected, in each of the years since the fixed penalty was raised at the end of June 2003, as well as the number of cases in which FPNs were issued to recipients of CSSA or Old Age Allowance over 60 years old; and

(b) whether it will consider encouraging the court to make CSOs on elderly littering offenders of limited means in lieu of the fixed penalty; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Madam President,

(a) Since the increase of the Fixed Penalty of Public Cleanliness Offences to $1,500 in late June 2003, the seven enforcement departments issued around 55,100 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) up to end-August 2005. The figures and amount of fines collected for each year are as follows:

Year No. of FPNs* Amount of Fines Collected#

($)

June 26 to

December 31, 2003 12 800 17.1 million

2004 (Full Year) 25 600 38.6 million

January 1 to

August 31, 2005 16 700 25.8 million

(* The numbers of FPNs were rounded to the nearest hundred.)

(# The amount of fines was rounded to one decimal place. As some offenders paid their fines late and due to other reasons, the amount collected in a particular year did not necessarily come from the FPNs issued in the same year.)

Among the some 55,100 FPNs mentioned above, around 16% involved persons aged 60 or above. The Government does not have information on the number of offenders who were recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance or the Old Age Allowance.

(b) The Community Service Order can be imposed on persons convicted of a littering offence (not including spitting, unauthorized display of bills/posters, and dog fouling). However, the Government does not have the power to direct an offender to serve a community service order in lieu of the fixed penalty. If an offender wishes to dispute the issue of a FPN on littering, he/she can ask the concerned enforcement department to arrange a hearing of the case by the Court. If the offender is convicted by the Court, the Court would impose the sentence it deems most appropriate, including the level of fine and/or imprisonment terms or a Community Service Order, on the offender. Should the offender have financial difficulties in paying the fine, he/she might appeal to the Court for a lower fine. We believe that not all elderly persons wish to replace the fine with a Community Service Order. According to the Community Service Order Ordinance (Cap. 378), the Court cannot make a Community Service Order against an offender unless with the latter's consent and other provisions as stipulated in the Ordinance have been fulfilled.