2013年5月14日星期二

古思堯案的判辭



古思堯的侮辱國旗區旗及焚燒國旗區旗案判刑上訴的判辭(香港特別行政區 訴 古思堯
HCMA185/2013),今天上載了。刑期由9個月減為4個半月,理據牽強,我覺得刑期應該可以進一步下調。

在考慮量刑的時候,高等法院聽審上訴的張慧玲法官考慮古思堯的案底、同類控罪的判刑及焚燒國旗使在場人士蒙受危險等因素。

古思堯有案底,其中一項是侮辱區旗被判罰款。同類案的判刑而言,侮辱國旗區旗的懲處,由守行為至罰款;焚燒國旗區旗的懲處,由7天監禁至判監3個月緩刑兩年。從判辭中我看不到代表古思堯的李柱銘怎樣極力争取減刑,甚至争取不用坐監。我對古思堯亳無好感,簡直厭惡,但我還要抱不平,為的是公義,不是他個人。

一開始古思堯就應該申請保釋等候判刑上訴,如果他這樣做,得到保釋的機會很大,這次上訴結果會很不同。若果當初因為要「殉道」而不作保釋等候判刑上訴的申請,就應該「殉道」到底,不作判刑上訴。若果當初得到保釋,到聽審上訴的時候就未必是坐監已成定局的局面,張慧玲也未必會囿於原審裁判官覃有方的判刑來遞減,做成當庭釋放的刑期。這件案存在判處更短刑期的空間,甚至可以要求緩刑。古思堯以前未試過為這種控罪判過監,判監不是必然的結果。

除了上述所講,我會再提出兩點争論。第一,反駁焚燒國旗使在場人士蒙受危險的講法。張慧玲認同覃有方這看法,實在有點牽強,焚燒國旗的危險怎會大得過盂蘭節「燒衣」,在場的人一人吐一啖口水,已把它淹沒了。(你當然可以講無人敢吐,因為吐等同侮辱國旗。)不要忘記,現場有警長拿着滅火筒在撲火,真正的原因是在滅罪,撲滅焚燒國旗之罪,而不是真的要消除危險而去撲救。李資深大律師父子兵上陣,連這種陳辭都不懂講,會不會有愧於古思堯。

另一點我會提出的是,針對判辭第32段的思維來講。

32. 上訴人雖不認罪,但他完全不挑戰控方案情,更坦言他曾做出控方所指的行徑。他不單無浪費法庭時間,亦令檢控官的檢控及裁判官的裁斷「易做」。本席認為上訴人應獲 ½ 個月的刑期扣減。

這額外半個月的減刑並不足夠。我會要求法庭給予等同認罪的1/3減刑。古思堯的抗辯與認罪有甚麼分別?他實際上同意控方的指控,他只是沒有講「我認罪」這3個字,他想藉此發表政治宣言-----不承認5星旗。法庭不容許任何人把政治帶上法庭,就不應該和古思堯計較,他根本就沒有抗辯,不應該當他認罪給他那種節扣嗎?

陳玉峰事件 一文留言教我要彰顯公義的讀者,我極期盼有機會看得到他怎樣奉行Lord Hewart CJ 那句金科玉律,而不是沒有內涵的lip service。








9 則留言:

  1. 網誌管理員已經移除這則留言。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. David,

      It is probably pro bono and Martin Lee was taking his son with him for his exposure. From the judgement, I do not see his substantive argument for Koo. Can you send an email to me? I would like to tell you something (which is not really important).

      Bill

      刪除
  2. Mr. Fong - I am so impressed by the fact that you, being a junior counsel yourself, see fit to criticize other members of the Bar without evening knowing the arguments actually advanced. I suppose you must have vast experience in appellate matters.

    Even more impressive is the fact that as a counsel, you don't know the plural of counsel is also Counsel, not counsels.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Sorry for stirring this matter up. Perhaps criticism should be directed at me. I am grateful if you could tell me what Mr Lee said on behalf of Koo which was not reflected in the judgement. Perhaps I can write to Judiana Barnes and ask her to confirm the omission in the judgement. If her Ladyship replies to me, if she replies at all, in the affirmative, I will write a blog as apology to Mr Martin Lee, SC for making a very disrespectful and unwarranted criticism of him. Alternatively, I can write to Francis Lo, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions to effect the same purpose.

      I have already told Mr Fong privately about the plural spelling of "counsel". It is a mistake you can even see in the appellate court judgement. In the blog I posted on 18 Oct 2011 titled 女包大人的判辭,I pointed this mistake out. I suppose it is not uncommon to see this inadvertent mistake but I did not write to the Judiciary to rectify this error the triviality of which does not require corrigendum to the judgement.

      刪除
  3. I must sincerely apologize to all members of the Bar for the unwarranted comments I made. I will be more much more circumspect in future.

    I plead for the forgiveness.


    回覆刪除
  4. 這額外半個月的減刑並不足夠。我會要求法庭給予等同認罪的1/3減刑。古思堯的抗辯與認罪有甚麼分別?他實際上同意控方的指控,他只是沒有講「我認罪」這3個字

    Bill少,小弟近日得閒就上來,看看你過往寫的文章.這一段小弟並不認同.雖然古生沒有挑戰控方案情,但你肯定知道控方還有不少工作要做吧,法庭也要花時間審吧,怎麼可能當他認罪,給他1/3扣減呢?至於此案的判刑的確重得不可理喻,減至4個半月也太重了,錯在只做了幾個月裁判官的那一位吧.

    回覆刪除
  5. 如果是錯在原審裁判官,那麽上訴法院的法官又如何?

    回覆刪除
  6. 根據判詞,J.Barnes判案前看過一系列類似案例,即Francis Lo呈堂的新證據,換句話說覃官沒有看過那些案例吧,所以覃官是根據甚麼決定starting point是大有疑問,看來很隨意吧.相反, J. Barnes看過案例後,根據案情及古生的背景決定starting point,是否manifestly excessive我不敢說.我說減至4個半月也太重,是感情上覺得搞社運判入獄四個月很不妥.

    回覆刪除
  7. 覃官以何作考慮不得而知,因為看不到他的裁斷陳述書。他們考慮的案例,其實只是在裁判法院過去的判罰資料,為了燒國旗抗議而要坐監,也算荒謬。

    回覆刪除