ROAD VEHICLES (SPECIAL POWERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Siew Choh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of the Bill, Sir, as stated in the explanatory statement, is to give increased powers of seizure of road vehicles to the Police and to extend the power of the court to order forfeiture of road vehicles. The Bill also seeks to give power to the Police to obtain information relating to the person in control of a road vehicle alleged or suspected to have been used in connection with a scheduled offence under the Ordinance.

Sir, in the light of experience, the existing Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Ordinance, No. 8 of 1960, has not been found to be completely effective in its main purpose of enabling the Police in its campaign against criminals and secret society gangsters to take effective action against vehicles used in connection with or in furtherance of criminal activities. In many cases, the Police have not been able to obtain orders of forfeiture of motor vehicles, because in certain circumstances it was difficult for them to first prove as the law required that they had reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was to be found in the vehicle any article in respect of which a scheduled offence had been or was being committed, although they were certain that the vehicle was used in the commission of a scheduled offence. Again, under the existing Ordinance, the Court could order forfeiture of a vehicle seized under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Ordinance only when it was proved to its satisfaction that a scheduled offence has been committed in respect of any article found in the vehicle or on any person found therein and seized by the Police or that such vehicle was used to convey persons to the scene where the scheduled offence had been committed or used for the escape or to facilitate the escape of persons found in the scene of a scheduled offence.

Clause 3 of the draft Bill, therefore, repeals the original restrictive powers in section 4 of the existing Ordinance under which the Police and the court had to act, and the new section 4, as introduced by clause 3, is more definite and provides that the court shall order the forfeiture of the road vehicle if it is proved that:

(a) (i) that the vehicle was used in the commission of a scheduled offence; or

(ii) that a scheduled offence has been committed in respect of an article found in the vehicle or any person found therein; or

(iii) that the vehicle has been used to convey persons to the scene where a scheduled offence has been committed or attempted to be committed; or

(iv) that the vehicle has been used for the escape or to facilitate the escape of any persons from the scene of a scheduled offence; and

(b) that the vehicle was seized by a police officer; and

(c) that written application has been made to the court by the State Advocate-General for its forfeiture.

Once these three essentials, i.e. (a), (b) and (c), are proved, the power of the court to order forfeiture is mandatory, notwithstanding that no person may have been convicted of any scheduled offence. Sub-clause (2) gives power to a police officer to seize any road vehicle liable to forfeiture under the provisions of this Bill. Sub-clause (3) gives power to the court, before which the prosecution with regard to a scheduled offence has been held, to order the forfeiture or the release of a road vehicle liable to forfeiture under the provisions of this Bill. Sub-clauses (4), (5) and (6) lay down the procedure to be followed in cases where a road vehicle has been seized but no arrest has been made or where no prosecution for a scheduled offence is to be instituted. Sub-clause (7) protects the Government from vexatious claims for costs and damages in cases where the court orders the release of a road vehicle.

Clause 2 of the Amendment Bill is only a consequential one due to the new clause 3 deleting the old section 4 of the Ordinance.

In dealing with cases under this Ordinance, the police have often been handicapped in their investigation work because they have often found that the owner or the person, who should know as to who was in control of a motor vehicle, is quite unwilling to make a full and frank disclosure of the particulars of the driver or the person who was in control of the road vehicle at the material time, with the result that the Police have not been able to successfully bring offenders to book. New section 4A, introduced by clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, makes it the duty for the owner of a road vehicle or any other person, who should know who was in control of a road vehicle which had been used for the commission of a scheduled offence or connected with the scheduled offence, to give such information as may be required by any police officer with regard to the identity and particulars of the person who was in control or was driving the road vehicle at any specified time. He is absolved from this responsibility only if he satisfies the court that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained the information required or that, owing to circumstances beyond his control, it was impossible for him to furnish the information.

Clause 5 of the Bill amends the schedule to the Ordinance by including therein thefts of motor vehicles and bicycles and their parts, and offences of receiving and assisting in the disposal of stolen vehicles and bicycles and their parts under sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Vehicles Ordinance, No. 9 of 1960.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Dr Lee Siew Choh].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.