罪犯自身條例

罪犯自新條例
根據香港法例第297章"罪犯自新條例"第 2 條, 如果你犯左刑事法而留有刑事紀錄, 但符合以下的所有條件:

1. 就該刑事罪行的判罰為不超過三個月的監禁, 或不超過港幣一萬元的罰款; 及

2. 以往未有觸犯任何刑事罪行而被定罪; 及

3. 被定罪後的三年內沒有再觸犯刑事罪行被定罪.

則可以不向外披露其刑事紀錄, 以及該刑事紀錄不會成為他被排除於職位, 專業, 職業或受僱工作的合法或正當理由.
"罪犯自新條例"並非只適用於十八歲以下犯人, 而是適用於所有人仕.

如果你只係有96年一單案底而無97年果單咁呢條例都重有可能啱用. 但你在三年內又犯法, 罪犯自新條例你己經用唔到.


2008-06-11 08:21:48 補充：
Mr. L: My answer to his question is that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance does not apply to him anymore because he has more than one criminal record. The ROO only applies to first time offenders who does not re-offend in three years.

2008-06-12 03:21:45 補充：
YOU said: You do not need to apply for you. If you have not been admited in criminal activities, then you do not need to mention about your criminal record as such.
I said: 如果你只係有96年一單案底而無97年果單咁呢條例都重有可能啱用. 但你在三年內又犯法, 罪犯自新條例你己經用唔到.
Please read carefully before you speak out.

2008-06-13 03:28:55 補充：
Mr. L: sect. 3 of "JUVENILE OFFENDERS ORDINANCE (Cap. 226)" states that:
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of 10 years can be guilty of an offence.
So, 你話 :"Since 17 is not treated as adult in the Hong Kong law...." 好似有d狗屁不通喎!!

2008-06-13 03:33:03 補充：
再者, 我唔係講緊佢案發時幾多歲, 而係話佢三年內兩次犯案, 己經唔乎合罪犯自新條例....
死撑係無用嘅.
而且閣下d英文咁屎, 無謂扮識law啦...

2008-06-13 03:41:38 補充：
by the way, may i remind you that the ROO applies to adults and juveniles alike...

2008-06-13 23:23:26 補充：
dora: i accept your comments and i agree that i should not have attacked other's language capabilities. that was not at all gentlemanly. thank you for pointing out my faults. i appreciate that.
l: i apologise for saying that your english is shit.

2008-06-13 23:25:58 補充：
but i still hold on to my view that the roo does not apply in this case because he has had two criminal records. no matter how long ago they were, the roo is still not valid in this case.

2008-06-13 23:34:52 補充：
l: and it was childish of me to vote against you in all your answers. i apologise for that as well. it was indeed immature. the reason being i resented your implying in your earlier comment that i copied your answer .

2008-06-13 23:35:15 補充：
if you would have a look at my previous answers you would indeed see that i have been quoting the roo in many answers long before.

雖然閣下好細心，針對問題而答問題 ! 不過，希望閣下客氣點會比較好些 ! 看看英國訪港工幹的御用，一向深受本人讚賞。很有禮貎，風度翩翩。晩上在盧押道亂籠是另一回事。再者，根據基本法，人人有言論自由 ! 對嗎 ?

2008-06-15 12:34:25 補充：
陳先生 :

剛閲過閣下以上的陳詞，除深令本人驚訝外，甚至也可令他人拍案叫好 !

火爆大狀一詞，從今天起應予以剔除 ! 今早閣下令我很開心。真的是 !

2008-06-15 12:57:22 補充：
承上題:

聰明的大律師或律師，永遠不會在法庭上作出如此行為。隅有爭拗，

也祇不過在低調進行三兩語句。他們深知如此繼續堅持爭拗下去

，法庭的角度，他們在言行上可能會大大跌分，又可能間接影響正在

處理中的事宜，處於不利位置或裁決結果。

a7day6night :

Don't bullshitting. Actually, no one wants to read the meaningless comment, you are so monotonous.

話雖如此，刑事案底係跟一世，警察會有記錄，不會完全消失。罪犯自身條例只適用於不嚴重的刑事案件，將來假如再被警察起訴，並不能完全說無刑事案底。

章：297, 標題：罪犯自新條例
條：2, 條文標題：對已自新的個別人士的保障
凡個別人士─
(a) 不論在本條例生效之前或之後在香港被定罪，但並未因此被判處監禁超過3個月或罰款超過$10000； (由1993年第24號第22條修訂)
(b) 在此以前不曾在香港被定罪；及
(c) 經過3年時間並未在香港再被定罪，
則─
(i) 除第3(3)及(4)條另有規定外，在任何程序中均不得接納傾向顯示他在香港曾被如此定罪的證據；
(ii) 就他以往的定罪、罪行、行為或情況而向他或向其他人提出的有關問題，或加諸於他或其他人的有關披露該等定罪、罪行、行為或情況的義務，均須視為並非指該項定罪；及
(iii) 該項定罪或不披露該項定罪，均不得作為將他從任何職位、專業、職業或受僱工作撤除或排除的合法或正當理由，亦不得作為使他在該職位、專業、職業或受僱工作上在任何方面蒙受不利的合法或正當理由。
You do not need to apply for you. If you have not been admited in criminal activities, then you do not need to mention about your criminal record as such. Moreover, your employer, creditors, and even government staffs cannot consider you being a criminal
條：6, 條文標題：資料的披露
附註：
具追溯力的修訂-見1999年第15號第3條

(1) 除第(4)及(5)款另有規定外，任何人如保管或有權查閱、或在任何時間曾保管或有權查閱由公職人員所備存關於被定罪的人的紀錄或其中所載資料，且並非在執行其公職人員的職責期間向他人披露第(3)款所指明的資料，即屬犯罪，可處罰款$20000。
(2) 任何人以欺詐或不誠實方式從公職人員備存的紀錄中取得第(3)款所指明的資料，即屬犯罪，可處罰款$50000及監禁6個月。
(3) 第(1)及(2)款所述的資料，乃是該2款所述的紀錄中載有的資料，且該等資料傾向顯示第2(1)、(1A)或(1B)條所適用的某名經指名或可以其他方法識別身分的個別人士曾經犯罪，或因某項罪行而被控告、檢控、定罪或判刑。 (由1996年第10號第6條修訂)
(4) 行政長官在其認為適當的情況下，可授權披露第(3)款所指明的資料，而對根據該項授權行事的人，第(1)款並不適用。 (由1999年第15號第3條修訂)
(5) 第2(1)、(1A)或(1B)條所適用的個別人士，可授權披露第(3)款所指明且與其本人有關的資料，而對根據該項授權行事的人，第(1)款並不適用。 (由1996年第10號第6條修訂)
Not even you do not have obligation to mention about your criminal record, but also no one, except for government herself, cannot keep your criminal record or consider you being a criminal. Or else, it is voilating discrimination law.

2008-06-10 14:15:17 補充：
Mr. Peterchan, what is the different between your answer and mine?

2008-06-12 01:35:17 補充：
Can you read my answer? My first part of answer covered the part you mention. It is not similar but identical!!!

2008-06-12 09:02:06 補充：
Surely, but can you read the legal statement carefully. This year is 2008, and disregard he was commited in any criminal record in either 96 or 97, this rule applies to him automatically. It has already been more than 3 years.

2008-06-12 09:04:15 補充：
In fact, he is in age of 17 when he was commited in criminal record, or not even a criminal record. Since 17 is not treated as adult in the Hong Kong law, he is definitely binded to 罪犯自新條例.

2008-06-13 08:55:48 補充：
First, please type in English if you find yourself good in English.
Beside, I was not focusing on the age regarding to this issue. I was tanking about criminal record in 97, which it is now 2008. If you may read my post carefully.

2008-06-13 08:55:55 補充：
Please put in this way, if you are such an expert in law, then I would like to see some case law regarding this issue.

2008-06-13 08:55:59 補充：
On the other hand, if you have confident about yourself, why should you get angry about it? Or you are afraid? Also, it is very childish to delicately vote against all my answers. I always think that people in the mind set of law will behave rationally. Or are you telling me you are not?

2008-06-13 09:00:08 補充：
Yahoo!Knowledge is a platform to share knowledge. If you find my answer for this topic is not good enough, you can surely stand against it. Do you think you are acting like a grow-up? I doubt it.

2008-06-13 09:00:14 補充：
Please claim yourself before take any action. Please behave. Do not want this to ruin the idea of Yahoo!Knowledge.

2008-06-13 09:05:50 補充：
If you still think that your behaviours, delicately to vote against all my posts and say something personally, are acceptable, then I lost. I quit. I am here to give my advice, comments, and point of view for people who are having problems.

2008-06-13 09:06:17 補充：
This is okay to have argument and different point of view. We can surely share about it. However, stepping on other's toes and act like a child are not something I expect in Yahoo!Knowledge.

2008-06-13 09:20:44 補充：
I have received 86 personals email asking for advice since my first post here. I am happy that some people here are really seeking for helps and advice. I am also happy to see that we have different point of view in this case, and we can bring up our argument.

2008-06-13 09:20:48 補充：
However, I am very disappointed to see that you came in my profile and delicately vote against all my answers. Also, the words using do not seem to be a mature one. Your words are not addressing the issue, but personally. Please let me know I am in the wrong place to give advice.