2014年7月29日星期二

拒交罰款

懲教取阿牛銀包3000元繳罰款

【明報專訊】民間電台台長曾健成(阿牛)昨晚於「啟豐2號」上被水警截查,被揭未曾繳交今年3月民間電台案中3000元罰款,被帶返柴灣警署通宵拘押。曾健成稱今早被轉介到荔枝角收押所後,被懲教署職員根據《裁判官條例》及《監獄條例》,在他反對下,扣除他錢包內的3000元現金,以抵消其過期罰款。曾健成不滿懲教署做法,強調寧願入獄7日而不交罰款,但該職員重申他有權這樣做,他後來在會見所長後獲釋。



稱公民抗命拒繳款 寧坐7日監

曾健成稱,拒絕繳交罰款是公民抗命,希望爭取開放大氣電波。他早於3月審訊期間已向裁判官表明不會繳交罰款。裁判官當時表示,若在6月19日前仍未繳交款項,將會被判入獄7日,但未有指示是否可以在拘捕後即時從身上取去現金。

懲教署昨回應稱不會評論個別事件,但表示職員會根據《裁判官條例》第38條(2) 及《監獄規則》第11條(1),將因欠繳罰款而遭警方逮捕者身上的財物繳付相關罰款。根據上述條例,當逮捕被判決須繳付罰款的人後,若發現他們身上有任何款項,則可用該筆款項支付罰款,剩下的款項須退還對方。

今年3月,民間電台台長曾健成及經營者海昇科技有限公司被裁定無牌管有無線電器材罪成,同被判罰3000元。
(29/7/2014)

上一篇留言帶出這一篇文,多謝PH讓我弄「斧」,其實我日常只是弄「釜」。另一位匿名讀者提出若果阿牛身上的錢不屬於他的,懲教署有權把它權充罰款嗎?先列出引用的兩條法例:

 
章:227標題:《裁判官條例》憲報編號:
條:38條文標題:將欠繳罰款的人身上發現的款項用以繳付經判決須繳付的款項版本日期:30/06/1997

(1) 凡被告人被判處罰款,但沒有隨即繳付罰款,裁判官可命令搜查被告

(2) 在逮捕被判決須繳付罰款的人時,或對該人進行如上所述的搜查時,或在該人因欠繳罰款而被帶往監獄或其他羈留地方時,如發現有任何款項,則除非裁判官另有指示,否則可用該筆款項以繳付罰款;剩下的款項(如有的話)須退還該人。

(3) 裁判官如信納在某人身上發現的款項並不屬於該人所有,或失去該筆款項較羈留該人會對其家人造成更大損害,則不得准許該筆款項作上述用途。



 
章:234A標題:《監獄規則》憲報編號:
條:11條文標題:囚犯的財產版本日期:30/06/1997

(1) 除非裁判官在拘押令內另以書面指示,否則在因欠繳罰款而交付羈押的囚犯身上搜獲的金錢,須用作繳付被判定須繳的罰款,但該囚犯須獲准保留$10及任何少於此數而又不足以抵償1天監禁的款額。 (1974年第2號法律公告)

(2) 除第(1)款另有規定外,凡囚犯所擁有的不准其保留的金錢、衣物及其他財物,須由監督保管,而監督須安排備存該等金錢及財物的清單一份該清單則須由有關的囚犯簽署核證其屬準確無誤。











《監獄規則》第11條表面上賦予懲教署把阿牛身上搜獲金錢來交罰款的權力,但連同《裁判官條例》第38條一起看(reading in conjunction with),就看得出阿牛坐牢而不交罰款的空間來。《裁判官條例》第38條(3)訂明,裁判官如信納在阿牛身上發現的錢不是他的,那3000元便不能用作罰款了。舉個極端例子,阿牛打劫劫了3000元凖備用以交罰款,警察拘捕他的時候發覺他有committal warrant,於是把他交去懲教署服刑,懲教署就不能把這些贓款用來繳交罰款了。又舉另一例,如果黎智英捐3000元給李柱銘,托阿牛交給他,這3000元便不是阿牛的了,怎能用來抵罰款?

我相信阿牛這一次雖然立心拒交,但向懲教署承認錢是他的,所以才讓懲教署拿了來繳罰款。假如阿牛否認這些錢是他的,只是受黎智英所托交給别人,那麽懲教署應怎辦?自然就要讓阿牛上庭由原審裁判官處理。法例用「信納」(satisfied),即是要聽取阿牛的講法,可以讓他上證人台作供及如有需要,讓他傳召黎智英為證人,舉證標凖是on balance of probability。

阿牛這件案是事先張揚拒交罰款的,所以原審裁判官也預先定了拒交的刑期,到了限期不交,就簽發committal warrant,拉人後直接交懲教署坐監。一般欠交罰款都不會先定下刑期,到期不繳交,法庭書記會準備拘捕令(arrest warrant instead of committal warrant),而法官在簽署時會加大銀碼作為堂費,譬如欠款3000元,就會在拘捕令處寫上拘捕後保釋金為3500元,警察拉人後如欠款人有錢保釋,就會擇日上庭。如果欠款人沒錢保釋,就會扣押在警署盡快安排上庭。這種拘捕令不會把人交給懲教署,懲教署也不會收人。

如果欠罰款下發出拘捕令拘捕到的人,身上有錢但不肯用來作擔保,警察就無權硬取,只好把他扣押帶上庭處理,把他的財物打包頭帶上庭,由法官定奪。《裁判官條例》第38條(1)的另一處理情況是,在案件審結時裁判官罰被告錢,他即時說沒有錢,裁判官可叫庭警即時搜身把找到的錢用來繳交。講到尾裁判官都要「信納」這些錢是被告的及拿了不會使他家人造成更大傷害。這些道理就等如被告的保釋金不是理所當然用作罰款一樣( 参考HKSAR and Ng Chi Ming HCMA 362/2000)。

2014年7月27日星期日

新加坡棄兒

今天各大報章都報導了一個父親把聾啞智障兒子拋棄在新加坡的新聞,新加坡警方透過國際刑警知會香港警方,拘捕了這父親,不管棄兒的原因,也不作道德審判,也不談政府對這些工作及支援是否足夠,只講法理,香港警察有權拘捕這父親嗎?

報導講警方以「疏忽照顧」罪拘捕這父親,控罪在此:

Chapter:212Title:OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ORDINANCEGazette Number:
Section:27Heading:Ill-treatment or neglect by those in charge of child or young personVersion Date:30/06/1997

(1) If any person over the age of 16 years who has the custody, charge or care of any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes such child or young person or causes or procures such child or young person to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause such child or young person unnecessary suffering or injury to his health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, or any mental derangement) such person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable- (Amended 50 of 1991 s. 4)
      (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 10 years; or (Amended 22 of 1950 Schedule; 68 of 1995 s. 51)
      (b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for 3 years, (Amended 68 of 1995 s. 51)
案發地點是新加坡,香港無司法管轄權,要審都不會在香港的法庭。我以前粗略講過域外司法管轄權,香港以外發生的案件香港的法庭有權審訊的不多。(可參考拙文:域外司法管轄權再談域外司法管轄權陳嘉桓案香港管不了)

當然,有人會引用法例第503章《逃犯條例》,香港和新加坡簽署了第503Q章的《逃犯(新加坡)令》,兩地有引渡協議,新加坡提出引導要求,香港警方便可拘捕這父親。首先,現階段似乎未有新加坡的引渡申請,再者能否引導也成問題。先要搞清楚新加坡有沒有相關條例,再者要查閱503Q附表裏第二條所列的罪行,裏面根本不包括「疏忽照顧」罪,怎樣引導?香港不能審,引導也不行,警察就無權作拘捕了。

雖然寫了這一篇,我並不贊成或鼓勵犯法行為,不論發生在域內或者域外。

2014年7月25日星期五

Temper justice with mercy法外施恩

在上一篇留言,我回覆PH,用了tamper justice with mercy。在香港的好朋友whatsapp我:喂乜唔係temper justice with mercy 咩?我查字典都係咁講喎。

喂我一直都咁用喎,上訴判辭又見過喎。於是把"temper justice with mercy"同"tamper justice with mercy"一齊輸入司法機構的網頁往判辭裏找,兩個都中喎。字典只有temper justice with mercy,解作法外施恩,這様講來我一直都用錯了。

不服氣之下,去找出處。第一個出處自 John Milton的Paradise Lost :Book X 第77-78行

I shall temper so
Justice with mercy

及莎士比亞的"Merchant of Venice" Act IV Scene i lines 193-199

When mercy seasons justice: therefore Jew,
Though justice be thy plea,  consider this,
That in the course of justice,  none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer,  doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.  I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea
......

Paradise Lost已不知丟了那裏去,在書架找不到,Merchant of Venice原來是1977年在南山書屋買的,這旺角的樓上書店已不在多年了。

Louis Tong 可能就是出於宗教的仁恕之心,讓這逾期超過10年的案件上訴得直吧!

我想另一個使我用"tamper" justice with mercy的原因是,以前處理過Tampering with Vehicles的控罪,就想當然用了"tamper"這字了。 就是這一條:


Chapter:374Title:Road Traffic OrdinanceGazette Number:E.R. 2 of 2012
Section:49Heading:Tampering with motor vehiclesVersion Date:02/08/2012

If a person otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable excuse gets on to a vehicle or tampers with any part of the vehicle, he commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $5000 and to imprisonment for 12 months.



2014年7月24日星期四

理據不清的逾時上訴

法學生看了今天上載的香港特别行政區 訴 林志成HCMA217/2014一案,在上一篇問我逾時上訴的問題。上訴由湯寶臣法官聽審,下面的兩段判辭概括了背景:

延期上訴的申請

4. 上訴人沒有在法定時限之內提出上訴。直到2014 年初,上訴人提出延長上訴通知期限的申請,但被原審裁判官否決。上訴人便向原訟庭提出相同要求。在過了10 年後才提出延期上訴的個案實屬罕見,如獲批准亦會對法庭、檢控部門及警方帶來很多實際困難。裁判法院及律政署已不會保存案件的檔案,而在這許多年後要求原審裁判官去撰寫裁斷陳述書,也不公平。本席當然有考慮過這些問題。但在處理這項申請時,本席主要是關注到辯認證據、會面紀錄程序與及招認內容的可靠性等議題,最後決定批准申請,給予上訴人一次申訴的機會。本席要感謝馬保華裁判官盡力配合撰寫了本案的裁斷陳述書。

5. 可幸的是,在2003年,各級法庭已經安裝了錄音系統,本席可取得完整的審訊記錄;另一方面,法援署批准了上訴人的申請,並指派了原審時代表上訴人的吳建五大律師進行上訴。張恩純、葉健民律師行也是在原審時代表上訴人,更多得他們找出了相關的文件,如控罪書,警員記事冊與及兩名被告的會面紀錄等。這些文件對本案的評估非常重要。
  

法學生的留言是:

標少,起剛剛頒發的判詞HCMA217/2014 ,法庭容納愈時上訴11年的申請並撤消被告的罪,以我的認知,法庭容許超過3個月的上訴時限案件微乎幾微,由於該案並沒有引述任何案例,我想知有何種質,有何案例可參考,法庭會容納這些上訴的申請?謝謝
經常匿名的學生

事實上從判辭可見,Louis  Tong完全沒有解釋批准逾期上訴(appeal out of time)的理由。不論民事或刑事案,考慮逾時上訴,都採用同一標凖。逾時越長,逾時的理據就要越有説服力,法庭才會批准這種申請,繼而考慮有關上訴理據。上面這兩段,不幸地,沒有展示出來。

有關法律考慮,在很多宗上訴案都清楚講了,譬如:

12. In considering whether leave should be given to appeal out of time, we look at the length of the delay, the reasons advanced for the delay and generally the bona fides of the application for extension of time. We would also look at the ground of the proposed appeal to see whether, by refusing leave to appeal, we were not shutting out a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal. Substantial grounds must be shown for the delay before we would grant indulgence, and the longer the delay, the more onerous is the duty of the applicant. The above are well established principles, see R v Wong Kai Kong & Anr [1990] 1 HKC 279 at 280H to 281D,HKSAR v Leung Yiu Ming & Anr [2000] 1 HKLRD 247 at 249G to 250A.
(HKSAR v. WILSON ALBERTO CORREDOR MEDINA AND ANOTHER CACC296/2007)

Application out of time: extension of time

14. As Ms Anna Lai pointed out in her helpful written submission, this court’s approach to an application for an extension of time in which to make an application for leave to appeal against conviction out of time is well-established. In the judgment of this court in R v Wong Kai Kong[5], Silke VP said:

“In considering whether the applicants should be granted the indulgence they seek it is first necessary for us to consider not only the reasons advanced in the grounding affidavits for the failure timeously to make application but also the period of time which has elapsed between the conviction and the application – here, as we have indicated, ten months – and generally the bona fides of the applicant.”

15. Silke VP went on to state that, in addition, the court was alive to the need to have regard to the grounds of appeal, to ensure:

“that by refusing leave to appeal we were not shutting out a substantial and plainly arguable ground of appeal.”

16. Of the approach of the court to its task, Silke VP said:

“In this exercise this Court should bear in mind that substantial grounds must be shown for the delay before the granting of the indulgence. The longer the delay the more onerous is the duty on the person making application.”
( HKSAR v. ABDUL KARIM MOHAMED NAINAR CACC 215/2013)

還有finality principle:

Finality

29. This is because of the importance of the public policy of finality, which applies to decisions made in police disciplinary proceedings just as it applies to judgments and orders of conventional courts of law. Indeed, one could say that given the particular importance of discipline in the proper management and operation of the police force, finality of disciplinary proceedings assumes additional significance.

30. Put another way, not only is a mere change in the perception of the law not a “good reason” for granting an extension of time (save in exceptional circumstances), prima facie, the public policy of finality makes it difficult for any “good reason” to exist for the grant of an extension of time. The longer the delay, the stronger finality works to negate the possible existence of good reason for an extension of time.

31. In this regard, I see no relevant distinction between an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review, and an application for an extension of time to lodge an appeal from the judgment of a civil or criminal court. In both cases, the court is asked to exercise its discretion to extend time in spite of the time restrictions laid down in the relevant provisions.
(YIU SUNG CHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE  HCAL 101/2009)

Louis Tong批准逾時上訴,毫無理據,對於上訴案例所訂下的原則,半點都沒討論,怪不得法學生要提出來討論。連最基本的問題:為何逾時10年才上訴,完全沒有交代。錄音系統保存了審訊的原整紀錄,只是果不是因。1994年開始為審案錄音至今已20年,由當初用磁帶、光碟儲存發展到數碼錄音,保存這些紀錄毫無難度,那麽二十年來,所有案件都可以提出逾時上訴嗎?這宗上訴案基本上是事實裁斷,連新法律觀點推翻舊判決也不是,批准上訴是考慮不周的惡例,如果認為我看漏看錯,請指點我的迷津,定必當頭受棒。




2014年7月23日星期三

令司法機構蒙羞之三

下面張貼了Stuart-Moore嚴斥Symon Wong的判辭,理由清晰,(除了一個typo, 第11段的owned字應該是owed),Symon無得撐。這類藏有少量毒品及吸食工具案,每日都不知發生多少宗,除非被告在保釋期間再犯,或者有棄保潛逃紀錄,否則沒有理由不予保釋,連旅遊證件也不會扣起。警察一早就讓他擔保,他又上庭應訊,第一庭又讓他繼續擔保,到了審訊日又有到庭,Symon真的沒有取消他擔保的理由,我怎樣想也拆解不到。真的要對付找藉口押後的被告,一個做法就是不准他押後,這樣做定了罪的話,上訴也好有可能得直,但不准押後要解釋就比revoke bail容易得多。另一方法就是立即把他這件案轉給Court Liaison Office, 看下當值律師能否接手代表被告。Symon用了最不利自己的做法,可能他沒想過會被嚴詞譴責。Symon得了個安慰奬,因為被告押後之後沒有到庭,覃有方發出拘捕令不予保釋,拉到之後這老同認罪居多。他獲得liberty, 獲得公義,到尾就會獲得應得的懲罰。

(判辭上載之後,立即有兩位匿名律師留言相告,看來我懶不得。)


HCMP 1731/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1731 OF 2014
______________________




BETWEEN           HKSAR  and  LEUNG KA KIT
____________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Stuart‑Moore in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing: 18 July 2014


Date of Judgment: 18 July 2014
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________

1. This is an application for bail which has been fast‑tracked by the Department of Justice to this court because of the scandalous circumstances in which Permanent Magistrate, Mr Symon Wong, withdrew the defendant’s bail at Eastern Magistrates’ Court on 14 July this year.
2. In short, the defendant was arrested on 30 April 2014 and he was charged on 10 June 2014 with two offences.  The first was possessing apparatus fit and intended for inhalation of a dangerous drug contrary to section 36(1) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.  The second charge was the possession of a crystalline solid containing 0.55 of a gramme of methamphetamine hydrochloride, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the same ordinance.
3. The defendant was given bail by the police on 13 April 2014 until 19 June 2014.  On that day he appeared before Ms Bina Chainrai, Principal Magistrate, sitting in Court 1 at Eastern Magistrates’ Court.  The defendant pleaded not guilty.  The prosecution had no objection to bail being extended until the defendant’s trial date.  Accordingly, he was given bail on condition that he deposited $500 with the court.
4. On 14 July 2014, the defendant again duly attended Eastern Magistrates’ Court.  This time he came before Mr Symon Wong in Court 6.  However, the defendant then applied to have an adjournment to secure legal representation.  That application was granted but the defendant’s bail was immediately revoked.  The defendant then asked the magistrate for bail, offering $1,000 cash bail and the surrender of his travel documents.
5. The prosecution, quite rightly in the circumstances, stated that they had no objection to bail.  The magistrate still refused to give bail.  The record of bail proceedings signed by the magistrate, a copy of which I have been provided, gives no reason at all as to why bail was refused.  It merely states, “Remanded in gaol custody.”  All 15 boxes on the Extract of Record of Bail Proceedings form, which provide a variety of reasons as to why bail may be withdrawn are conspicuously left blank.  These are followed by the magistrate’s signature.
6. The withdrawal of bail, in the circumstances I have described, is utterly shocking.  There was not one single valid reason, either provided by the magistrate or on the facts for withdrawing bail.  This was a blatant abuse of power to lock up an unrepresented defendant who was himself powerless to do anything about it. 
7. If the magistrate was irritated by the defendant wanting a contested trial or by his request for legal representation, as it seems he must have been, this was no reason for the quite outrageous and disproportionate action he took.  As a matter of fundamental law, there is a presumption in favour of bail. 
8. The liberty of the subject is not some theoretical catchphrase.  To lock someone up without sound reasons is entirely contrary to our system of law.  Fortunately for the defendant, we have a Department of Justice which is there, amongst other reasons, to protect the rights of those who have been unfairly treated.
9. The magistrate’s refusal to grant bail has been brought to this court’s attention as quickly as possible by the Department of Justice and Ms Annie Li, on the Department’s behalf, has outlined to me the deplorable circumstances in which the defendant was remanded in custody pending his trial.  Such conduct on the part of a magistrate must never happen again.  It brings disgrace on the judiciary whose reputation has been built on the fairness and equal treatment it gives to all parties who come before the courts.
10. Now, as to this bail application, as I indicated to the defendant before these proceedings began, bail will be granted.  Cash bail in the sum of $500 is already lodged with the court and there will be no other conditions.
11. Mr Leung is owned an apology on behalf of the judiciary for the way he has been treated in this case which I am glad to be able to extend to him now.  This should never have occurred and it is to be hoped that there will be no further example of this kind of behaviour from the Bench.
12. I would also like to compliment the Department of Justice for immediately recognising the injustice which was done to Mr Leung and, as soon as this was recognised, for bringing it to the attention of the court.  I should just add, though, that this court is fully geared to hear same‑day bail applications before a High Court judge in cases which reveal such a clear cut denial of justice as this, where the wholly inappropriate use of judicial power has been wielded to incarcerate someone who was plainly entitled to his liberty.  It is to be hoped in future that, in a case such as this, the application can be heard even sooner than it has.
13. The reality is this, that the defendant only applied for bail on 16 July 2104, two days after he had been put into custody.  This was faxed through to this court at 11.36 am on Wednesday, 16 July 2014, and a copy was also sent to the Department of Justice.  The court administration, when it received the form applying for bail, allowed, as is usual for routine applications, two clear working days before the hearing and so they originally listed the case for Monday, 21 July 2014.
14. However, the Department of Justice, realising that this was not a routine application and that they had at no stage opposed bail, informed the court this morning.  As a result, the case was listed for this afternoon.  Obviously, this could have been picked up more quickly as the Department of Justice could have noted the urgency of the application on the copy of the bail form faxed directly to them on 16 July 2014.  For one reason or another, this was overlooked.
15. If the defendant had had the advantage of legal representation, the whole apparatus for arranging an urgent application for bail could have been put into place on 14 July 2014, immediately after bail had been refused. As a matter of procedure, aside from ordinary common sense, such applications should be clearly marked ‘urgent’ and a short reason should be provided to indicate to the court why the application needs to be put on as quickly as possible.
16. In this case, all that needed to be said was that the magistrate had refused bail on his own initiative, without giving any reason and the prosecution had at no stage objected to bail.


(M Stuart‑Moore)
Deputy High Court Judge

Miss Li Nga Yee Annie, PP of Department of Justice, for the respondent

Applicant in person, present

2014年7月22日星期二

令司法機構蒙羞之二

上一篇評論Symon Wong 給Stuart-Moore嚴厲批評而引發關於法官的行為問題。讓我先講一下法官的任命程序。區域法院或以下的級別是這様的,跟聘請公務員程序一樣,要填一份申請表GF340,符合基本要求就安排面試,面試有幾個interviewers,申請做裁判官就由總裁判官(CM) 做主席,其他成員會有兩個主任裁判官(PM),一個裁判官及一名高級行政主任。另外有一位高院法官做觀察員。會面後就打分,然後排位及定出後備名單。入選者會收到一份GF200,填寫背境資料,這份東西煩到抽筋。再發展下去就由警方及廉署做背景審查,當然要核對刑事紀錄,情報檔案及到以往讀書及僱主處查詢,再下去就到政府醫院驗身。最後就推薦給Judicial Services Commission「蓋印」。

在背景審查中,根本無可能包括跳舞買鐘出街這類事情,除非涉及黑社會往來頻密或者畸型的性變態行為等,否則不會在情報搜集過程中hit到。就算主持會面的人知悉申請人以前跳過舞,也未必會把他剔除,因為那是以前的事。做官之後的行為當然受到限制,《法官行為指引》沒有詳細列出每一項不能做的事,只訂定大原則。如果法官在任期間做出影響司法機構聲譽,打擊公眾對法官品格信心的事,司法機構會進行紀律聆訊,這種聆訊外人無從知曉,裏面的人都要品秩甚高才會知悉,是高度機密的程序。

上一篇陽劍文留言,講對法官行為的規範屬俗世標準,我絕不同意。法官的行為就有做法官的標準,一個極高標凖,社會尊敬法官,當然不是因為那只是一份工,也因為這份工的性質,及做這份工的人的形像,那形像使人對於他/她是個公正不阿的人不會置疑。

舉個極端例子,如果法官可以去跳舞買鐘出街,可能有一日在庭上遇到被告會講這番話:「法官,使乜咁惡啫,我認得你,你喺邊度跳舞我喺你隔離房,我都喺mark同一條女出街,計起嚟我哋係老襟喎!」如果你在庭上做證人或别的案的被告,你覺得這樣一位法官有資格審你件案嗎?你對他的裁決信服嗎?又或者,黑社會大佬去跳舞遇到法官,通過舞小姐建立某種連繫,你會覺得這法官值得尊敬嗎?

陽劍文強調只要法官行為合法,他們就可以行使個人自由和權利去做這些事,我想我們的分歧在這裏。法官不能享有一般人同等的自由和權利,因為社會對他們有不同訴求,司法機構對他們有嚴格品格要求,有些不犯法的事,他們也不能做。今時今日如果還有舞廳,法官去跳舞的話,必然會面對紀律聆訊而執包袱。至於陽劍文講法官同性戀的自由,這一點反而無問題,司法機構對此持開明態度,法官也有同性戀的,世俗標凖完全不適用。我上一段所舉的假設性例子,就説明對法官的規範並不是道德考慮那麽簡單。其實不單是跳舞,法官爛賭又如何?同樣地,這種法官可能輸錢欠債而容易做出妥協的事情,也容易受到勒索要脅。如果埋怨法官沒有自由,享有少於一般人的自由,那麽就不要做法官好了。就等如嗜飲茅台的湯顯明,如果他只是茂里低級公務員,誰會理他,但他貴為廉署頭頭,大家就懷疑他會以權謀私,通風報信,對他的期許不公平嗎?故此,陽劍文以公平及權利作為出發點,恐怕一開始就使用錯誤標凖了。

最新留言講Stuart-Moore給予保釋,因此嚴厲批評Symon Wong的毒品案被告今早棄保潛逃了。這結果可能令Symon心涼,但不能說他眼光獨到,因為他取消被告擔保時完全沒有講flight risk。這結果純屬巧合,老同劈保,時常發生,不足為奇。不應因此平反Symon的錯處,我自始至終都覺得用disgrace來批評是不對稱地嚴苛。

如果想看《法官行為指引》,可登入司法機構網頁:http://www.judiciary.gov.hk/en/index/,click 左上角的About Us, 再click : Judges, 就可以看到Judicial Conduct的pdf檔案。


2014年7月19日星期六

令司法機構蒙羞

標題奪目,來自法庭新聞:

高院批原審濫權 無理撤保釋
責裁判官黃汝榮「令司法機構蒙羞」

【明報專訊】涉嫌藏毒疑犯5日前在裁判法院受審,惟他以需時聘請律師為由申請押後審訊,裁判官黃汝榮雖批准申請,卻無故撤銷其保釋。被告還押兩日後向高院提出保釋申請,昨獲法庭緊急處理並批准保釋,主理的暫委法官司徒冕狠批原審裁判官濫權,決定無理及令司法機構蒙羞,並代司法機構向被告致歉。

代司法機構向被告道歉

昨日緊急處理保釋申請的法官司徒冕,退休前曾出任上訴庭副庭長,現間中以高院暫委法官身分審理案件。他指出,本案始於今年4月30日,被告梁家傑(34歲)因涉在中環碼頭外藏有0.55克冰毒及吸毒器具被捕,其後獲警方准予保釋,到他答辯及候審期間,同獲准以現金500元保釋外出。

沒交代撤保原因僅簽名作實

至本月14日,案件原定在東區裁判法院開審,惟被告要求更多時間聘請律師,裁判官黃汝榮雖批准其申請,卻下令撤銷被告保釋,被告一度提出把保釋金額提高至1000元,控方亦表明不反對被告保釋,惟黃汝榮仍堅持決定。高院暫委法官司徒冕法官昨指出,程序上當裁判官不給予被告保釋,需要在內部表格上揀取15個方格的其中一項解釋原因,惟裁判官沒揀取任何一項,僅簽名作實。

司徒冕指出,裁判官當時並沒任何理據拒絕被告保釋,其做法令人震驚,批評他公然濫用司法權力,把沒有律師代表的被告囚禁;又指即使裁判官因被告缺乏律師代表,或因他令審訊延遲而感到煩厭,也沒權這樣做,其行為「離譜」及不符權力比例,「完全違反法律制度」。司徒冕續指出,司法機構的聲譽建基於對上庭人士公平及公正的對待,裁判官在沒合理情况下扣押被告,聞所未聞,亦令司法機構蒙羞,「絕對不可再發生」。

讚律政司及早發現事件

司徒冕稱讚賞律政司一方及早察覺事件有異,通知法庭提早處理案件,保障被告免受不公平對待,並指出高院絕對有能力在同日處理任何被告的「越級」保釋申請,又稱律政司原可在文件上標明是緊急申請,令被告更早獲得保釋。

司徒冕透露,被告遭撤銷保釋後兩日向高院申請保釋,法庭接獲文件後原把案件排期至下周一聆訊,惟法庭昨接獲律政司通知此為緊急申請,被告在控方不反對其保釋下被撤銷保釋,並不正常,故法庭提早於昨午4時處理案件,並批准被告續以500元保釋。

司法機構對事件不作回應,而被告審訊已排期於7月22日再訊。另外,保釋申請的內容原設報道限制,但法官昨准許傳媒報道有關判辭。

【案件編號:HCMP1731/14】
(19/7/2014)

昨晚已有匿名在上一篇留言問我對Symon Wong呢鑊嘢點睇,真係唔識講。不過,Stuart-Moore鬧佢又鬧過龍喎,一則不致於令司法機構蒙羞,再者使乜道歉啫,這叫hyper correction,  矯枉過正。

香港司法界有些傳統概念問題,這件案的被告到審訊日提出押後請律師,法官不批准而開審,釘咗肯定又appeal allowed,個官會畀上大人媽佢breach of natural justice,久而久之,控方也不會反對,搞到變成荒謬的norm。有不少這種案件是出於刻意拖延所致,但做慣了就變理所當然。本案被告是否使用拖延手法,我不知道,日後自有分曉。首先,佢畀450蚊揾皇家老狀都得啫,真喺有能力籌幾皮嘢揾個私家老狀?幾皮嘢揾個大狀連soli都揾唔到幾夠資歷架喇。佢衰乜嘢?Possession of DD 同apparatus,即係老同喇。放長雙眼睇下佢下次before第二個官佢係咪PG。佢申請押後分分鐘想避咗Symon。

Symon revoked 佢bail, 梗係自己蝕底,但咁叫令司法機構蒙羞,又講得太誇張,話佢犯錯咪得囉,點蒙羞啫?唔少cases appeal allowed架啦,咁下面嗰啲官就個個都令司法機構蒙羞咩!Symon個底差啲(見下面貼了明報另一則報導),依家好似炒埋一碟嚟媽佢,以事論事,一單還一單,我為佢申冤。

上大人向被告道歉,也發生過。很久以前,真的很久了,大律師JC做暫委裁判官審一單交通案,坐得監嗰種,審到半路,被告十分寸嘴,JC remanded 條友入custody,  defence揾McCoy去高院攞bail, 當時好似係Mayo聽,一樣媽JC 媽到飛起,仲起身向被告躹躬道歉,好似無話令司法機構蒙羞咁誇張。自此, JC就無再喺司法機構再打工。JC係friend嚟,所以我唔講名。

講到令司法機構蒙羞,幾時輪到Symon 同JC,係都由Jackson-Lipkin行頭喇,高院法官退休後連同大律師嘅老婆「陸小鳳」一齊呃綜援,嗰啲係intergrity既問題,仲有喎,佢點解退休吖?就係做緊高院法官嗰陣成日一身荷蘭水蓋出席官式場合冒充自己係二次大戰英雄,畀人篤爆,先至提早退休,又唔見CJ出嚟道歉。仲有喎,另外一個高院大老爺(退休好耐),成日喺灣仔蒲吧左擁右抱,你話有無令司法機構蒙羞!吓!Hearsay, 我無親眼見到,梗無喇,我夜晚連吧都無去過,點見到。不過,佢老婆成日同我訴苦,你話算唔算數。所以,高級嘅就蒙頭睇唔到,低級就蒙羞。我答上一篇匿名嘅留言,Sigh!就係咁解!

下面最尾嗰段話Symon去跳舞,都係做官之前嘅事喇,佢過到police同ICAC vettings喎,仲翻乜舊賬啫?佢做官之後無搞啲咁嘢,咪OK囉。依家想跳舞都唔得喇,舞廳都執晒。有個DPP未做之前都跳舞喇,咁又點?


【明報專訊】裁判官黃汝榮已非首次遭上級法官批評,今次更被司徒冕嚴厲指摘「令司法機會蒙羞」,屬十分嚴重的批評。黃汝榮亦曾被批評用字欠莊重,例如把摸胸說成「撫弄其嶺上雙梅」。2007年他審理偷竊羅漢松案時,又形容被告自辯屬「靈魂之說,怪誕愚昧」,另一被告證供「就像替文章起了題目,內容卻空無一物」。當時的上訴庭直言,「從沒有在近代法官所撰寫的判決書中,看見過如此偏激、嘲諷及含侮辱成分的用詞」。

裁決被指先入為主

黃汝榮於2006年裁定一名被告非禮罪成,他在判決書中指接納事主女童的證供,形容她不可能說謊,因為她「縱有仙人點路,指點迷津,還得配合自然演繹,及經得起盤問,才可瞞天過海」。黃又指被告「敲鑼擊鼓,高調地反覆強調」其清白,但被控方盤問後,「整條狐狸尾巴, 已展露無遺」。

負責處理上訴的高院法官湯寶臣批評,黃官的判決書應該「重理性分析而不重花巧」,批評黃官「這種誇張的形容,在一份嚴肅的法律文章裏出現,難免會令人覺得有欠莊重」。

黃同年處理另一宗非禮女童案的判刑時,表示「想睇吓被告是人是獸」,又指被告「六根未淨,重犯機會比天高」。黃官稍後審理另一宗非法斬樹案件,當時經營茶座的被告辯稱,因怕茶座附近的大樹有倒塌危險才斬樹。辯方其後欲傳召茶座熟客作供,但黃官表示已掌握辯方說法,又指辯方傳召多少證人都無作用,判被告刑事毁壞罪成。高院後來推翻有關裁決,並指黃官的說法是「先入為主」,令定罪有欠穩當。

被爆到夜總會消遣

另外,黃官於2002年以控方證人身分為一宗律師行文員涉意圖妨礙司法公正案作供時,曾被辯方大爆曾與被告到澳門新花城夜總會消遣,其間更叫了4名「小姐」,但黃只承認曾到夜總會。

2014年7月18日星期五

流動佔中會否構成遊蕩罪

品質兄在上一篇留言,提出檢控「流動」佔中者「遊蕩」罪的可能性。先讓我們看法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第160條的三款遊蕩罪的元素:

條: 160 條文標題: 遊蕩 版本日期: 30/06/1997

(1) 任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩,意圖犯可逮捕的罪行,即屬犯罪,可處罰款$10000及監禁6個月。(由1992年第74號第3條代替)

(2) 任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩,並以任何方式故意妨礙他人使用該公眾地方或該建築物的共用部分,即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處監禁6個月。

(3) 任何人在公眾地方或建築物的共用部分遊蕩,不論單獨或結伴在該處出現,而導致他人合理地擔心本身的安全或利益,即屬犯罪,一經定罪,可處監禁2年。

(4) 在本條中,就建築物而言,“共用部分”(common parts) 指─

(a) 入口大堂、門廊、通路、走廊、樓梯、樓梯平台、天台、升降機或自動梯;
(b) 建築物佔用人共用的地窖、洗手間、水廁、房、浴室或廚房;
(c) 圍地、車房、停車場、汽車間,或里

「遊蕩」一詞,在法例中沒有釋義,一般都以字典的解釋作考慮,並以由香港上訴至樞密院的AG v Sham Chuen案所講的釋義方法去看,即是“The word is to be construed in the light of the context in which it appears in this particular enactment”。而「遊蕩」一詞,字典普遍解釋為在某處閒逛(idling)、逗留(hang about)或徘徊(lingering)。那麽,去逛街行公司豈不是屬遊蕩?無錯,不過不構成犯法那種「遊蕩罪」,因為「遊蕩罪」要根據其所屬的特定法例的文意去詮釋。

《刑事罪行條例》第160條第一款(subsection (1))的遊蕩需要有意圖犯可逮捕性罪行,「可逮捕性罪行」我在101拘捕令在法律上的意思一文解釋過也舉過例,就把「流動」佔中行為看到最嚴重亦可證實有關意圖,也不外乎是阻街,就不符「可逮捕性罪行」的介定,因為阻街最高可判監6個月,不符「可逮捕性罪行」超過12個月監禁的要求。故此,put it to the highest, 都no case to answer。

第二款的遊蕩要故意妨礙他人,「流動」佔中,無疑對正常使用中環的人有一定阻礙,但在人多擠逼的地方,究竟怎樣分辨誰在妨礙誰使用那地方呢?只要「流動」佔中的人沒有故意阻撓別人使用該地方,就不構成第二款的遊蕩了。上訴案例中也有第二款遊蕩的例子,譬如HCMA 696/2007一案,收數佬到餐廳收數,阻撓和妨礙顧客光顧,霸枱令餐廳不能營業逼老闆現身,收數佬的行為就構成第二款的遊蕩罪。

第三款的遊蕩要導致他人合理地擔心本身的安全或利益,「流動」佔中的人沒涉暴力,排隊買票或提款,無任何使人擔心安全或利益的因素,真的有人擔心,都屬不合理。這一款遊蕩罪用來檢控得比較多,譬如男人入了女厠,影裙底,在住宅大堂徘徊等,以「流動」佔中的人主張的做法,這一款完全不適用。

只要「流動」佔中的人分散行事,進行正常正當又合法的活動,我看不到會犯甚麽法。



2014年7月17日星期四

流動佔中犯法嗎?

陽劍文在上一篇留言,指派我寫篇評論,留言這樣講:

標標, 我要運用特權下令你寫文分析以下一段文字:

「執業大律師陸偉雄接受本網訪問時指,若市民自發前往中環四處走動,警方不諳其目的,不能貿然作出拘捕行動;但一旦市民駐足過久,有實質證據(如錄影或長期觀察)顯示市民不是僅僅路過或圍觀,是在參與行動,則會有被捕風險。」

thehousenews.com/occupy-central/%E7%B6%B2%E6%B0%91%E7%99%BC%E8%B5%B7-%E6%B5%81%E5%8B%95%E4%BD%94%E4%B8%AD-%E8%81%B2%E6%8F%B4-%E5%92%8C%E5%B9%B3%E4%BD%94%E4%B8%AD/
這様講無非要我講流動佔中的合法性。首先,我要假定佔中犯法,才可以討論下去。佔中沒有具體方案,暫時不能肯定講會犯甚麽法,大概都會干犯《公安條例》的非法集結及《簡易程序治罪條例》的阻街那類控罪,就以此為討論基礎。根據《主場新聞》所報導「流動」佔中提出的聲援方式,我看不到可以提出檢控的可能。到佔中地方週圍走動,沒有實質參與,警察叫走即走,駐足過久也不見得犯法,因為要證明犯罪意圖殊不容易。

我們可以再考慮這種「流動」人士和佔中的人有沒有共同計劃(joint enterprise),假設有這種證據,證明「流動」的人與佔中的人有共同犯罪意圖,不管角色輕重,均屬有罪。這種證據來自三方面。一、他們公然宣布自己的行動及目的,二、在被拘捕警誡下承認,三、有臥底指證犯罪計劃或協議。單是置身現場,不足以定罪。

再進一步考慮是他們這種流動式的舉措,沒有固定目的行為,是否屬於協助或教唆呢?要證明一點也不易,除非有證據顯示他們有明確行為去協助或幫助或有此意圖去幫助佔中的人犯法。

就算實際佔中,也不一定會被檢控,如果人數眾多,角色輕微,未必符合檢控政策而被控,何況是扮演更次要角色在「流動」的人?




2014年7月14日星期一

法庭拍攝

民建聯查走光黑點 發放法院相涉違法

【明報專訊】民建聯婦女事務委員會第6年就本港走光黑點調查,昨日公布19個最新走光黑點,包括立法會3樓教育廊、屯門及粉嶺裁判法院及PMQ元創方等,譴責政府和有關發展商考慮並不周全。不過,民建聯調查中卻展示一些屯門及粉嶺裁判法院的內部照片,此舉涉嫌觸犯《簡易程序治罪條例》中禁止在法院拍照的罪行。

葛珮帆﹕如確定違法會致歉

負責此項調查的民建聯婦女事務委員會主席葛珮帆昨回應,指涉及裁判法院的數張相片由市民提供,該委員會正徵詢法律意見,如果調查中公布的相片確實觸犯法例,定必會向法院及公眾致歉。

在有關走光黑點的記者會上,葛珮帆與其他成員公布走光黑點,並將部分黑點的相片放大,在記者會上展示,包括粉嶺裁判法院內部的照片,指出走廊玻璃圍欄設計容易令女士走光。另發給傳媒的黑點相片檔案中,各有兩張屯門及粉嶺裁判法院的內部照片。根據《簡易程序治罪條例》,任何人在法院範圍內拍照或發放有關照片,即屬違法,可判處罰款250元。

元創方﹕已加措施防走光

在記者會公布的走光黑點,亦包括中環PMQ元創方的地下與地庫之間的玻璃天窗及樓梯的「走光陷阱」;但記者昨日到現場,見樓梯級間空隙已加上圍板,有天窗的地下展廊暫停開放。另有傳媒昨指出記者會中展示PMQ的照片,為有報章在4月底報道中的新聞照片,指民建聯在未經該傳媒機構允許下取用。PMQ回應指出,5月已完成優化工程,於天窗及樓梯加了分隔視線措施。

對於今次黑點調查問題多多,葛承認事件中有疏忽,承諾會檢討有關調查的考察制度

(14/7/2014)

我只評論這新聞有關法院範圍拍照的合法性問題。先看法例第228章《簡易程序治罪條例》第7條:
章:228標題:《簡易程序治罪條例》憲報編號:L.N. 247 of 2000
條:7條文標題:禁止在法庭內攝影等版本日期:01/09/2000

(1) 任何人有以下行為,可處罰款$250
    (a) 在法庭內拍攝或企圖拍攝任何照片,或為供發表之用而在法庭內繪畫或企圖繪畫該法庭的法官,或在該法庭所進行的民事或刑事法律程序中的陪審員、證人或任何一方的肖像或素描 (1979年第7號法律公告修訂)
    (b) 發表在違反本條上述條文的情況下所拍攝的任何照片、所繪畫的任何肖像或素描,或其任何複印品。
(2) 就本條而言
    (a) 法庭(court) 詞指任何法庭,包括裁判官進行研訊的任何地方
    (b) 法官(judge一詞包括司法常務官裁判官 (1997年第4710修訂2000年第28號第47條修訂)
    (c) 任何照片、肖像或素描,如果是在法庭或舉行聆訊的建築物或其範圍內拍攝或繪畫的,或是拍攝或繪畫某人並且是在該人進入或離開該法庭或上述建築物或其範圍時拍攝或繪畫的,則該照片、肖像或素描,須當作是在法庭內拍攝或繪畫。



明報這篇報導涉及兩個問題,第一個是我講過很多次的罰款分級制,250元的罰款屬第一級,所以變成2000元,此其一。第二個問題是究竟是否所有法庭拍攝都屬違法?我認為未必。從上面條文可以看出,在法庭內及進行研訊的任何地方或其範圍內拍攝或繪畫,都屬違法,真正的著眼點是保障法庭的莊嚴,法官、證人及陪審員等。如果在法庭沒有運作下,空無一人的情況下拍攝,犯法嗎?這是富爭論性的。如果翻閱司法機構的年報及瀏覽其網頁,都可以看到拍攝法庭內的照片,包括模擬法庭及對到訪者講解的照片,那麼司法機構負責拍攝的人都犯法嗎?我想指出法律的釋義不是死板的,故此,如果拍攝法庭照片展示走光黑點,是否犯法,視乎在甚麽情況下拍攝。當然,胡亂拍攝,更可能觸犯普通法的藐視法庭罪。

2011年9月,發生在英國這段新聞值得喜歡用電話拍攝的人引以為戒,BBC當年這樣報導:


Teenager jailed for taking photo at Luton Crown Court

A teenager from Luton has been jailed for two months for taking a photograph of a courtroom from the public gallery during a hearing.

Paul Thompson, 19, had gone to Luton Crown Court to support a friend facing a custodial sentence for robbing an off-duty police officer.

He was seen taking a picture which he sent to a friend.

After his Blackberry phone was seized he admitted being in contempt of court and was jailed by Judge Barbara Mensah.

She said: "There are notices all around the court building about not taking photographs in court.

"This is a serious offence and the message must go out that people cannot take photos."

As she jailed him on Friday, Thompson said: "That's stupid, man."

After Thompson was seen taking the photo his phone was seized and he was taken to the cells.

'Stupid idiot'

An hour later he was brought into the dock and admitted the charge.

Thompson's defence barrister John Livingstone told the judge the teenager had admitted being "a stupid idiot".

He said: "It was not a photograph of anyone in particular and he did not notice any signs forbidding this behaviour.

"This has been a very big shock for him."

He said Thompson was very concerned as he had left his eight-week-old puppy alone in his flat in Luton, and the dog was not house trained and no-one else had access to the property.

A spokesman for the UK penal reform charity, the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "Short spells in custody have been shown to be very ineffectual and they are a costly way of dealing with the issue.

"Young people are so used to using their phones like this these days and a little understanding of that by the court would not have resulted in a prison sentence.

"Also, and this was seen with the disproportionate sentencing following the riots, there is a degree to which it appears the justice system is not keeping pace with the change in technology.

2014年7月13日星期日

畢屈糸列之五:畢屈直選

麻雀文化遺產發揚光大協會突然要搞選舉,畢屈太是創會會員,經歷十多年的人事更替,一向都沒有選會長,都是毛遂自薦的,由勇於承擔的人站出來做。畢屈太對吃喝玩樂當仁不讓,就年年都自薦做會長,想著千秋萬世,死而後已地去做。可是,好景不常,雀友中出了個造反派,依樣畫葫蘆,覬覦這雀位。雀位,不是爵位喎,都有人垂涎?世事就是這樣無聊,講到底就是權利慾。講開垂涎,不難聯想到唾手可得,很多人都把它誤作垂手可得,以為是伸下手就拿得到的意思,其實是唾手可得,即是向手吐啖口水,易如反掌的意思。畢屈太以為是打麻雀時,伸手摸牌,隨時自摸槓上花,所以在她概念中,不單止是垂手,還是自摸槓上花。對於會長這職位,她又以為自己可以年年冧庄,做其永遠會長,直到永遠,阿門。自摸吃餬,還有誰可以搶得到。幾乎無,但是人家吃十三么卻是例外。畢屈太這一回真的遇上做十三么的人。

「老公,你話有乜道理,我年年做開,搞乜選舉啫,又話唔准做超過四年,擺明搶我個位啫。個雀會唔喺我搞出嚟,佢哋邊有得玩喎?依家仲出嚟爭,唔鍾意咪唔好嚟打囉,你話依家點對付佢?」

「老婆,叫黃太出嚟做會長囉。黃太咁聽你話,佢做同你做咪一樣,到時你做會長後面嗰個會長囉。」

「都好,不過依家話直選喎,點叫黃太做呀?」

「好易啫,用直選名義實行曲選囉。」

「點曲選呀?」

「嗱咁咪得囉,佢哋唔少人以前問我攞法律意見,欠我人情,我叫佢哋出嚟講,話黃太人品好,唔使選啦,一於叫佢做,咪得囉。個個都造馬架啦,香港選特首,咪一樣係咁,御筆欽點,點邊個選邊個。」

在畢律師的疏通之下,黃太當上了麻雀文化遺產發揚光大協會的會長,畢屈太捐了點錢,成為永久榮譽會長。那些雀友,把民主選舉忘得一乾二淨,有一兩個記得的,也不堅持,反正中國人做了幾千年無選舉的愚民,這源遠流長的文化遺產,豈能不接受,遺產喎,你唔要咩?







2014年7月10日星期四

立法會對湯顯明的報告

立法會調查前廉政專員湯顯明事件的專責委員會終於發表了報告,不管結論怎樣,都不影響廉署日後對湯的刑事檢控考慮。儘管建制派對湯的醜行搽脂盪粉加以掩飾,廉署的調查不一定跟立法會下同一結論,湯顯明大鑼大鼓的喊無貪的結論,他清白嗎?看你用甚麽標準。假設真的不能循第201章《防止賄賂條例》控告他貪污受賄,也可以考慮普通法的「公職人員行為不當」罪(Misconduct in Public Office)來告他。這控罪的元素,在高級警司冼錦華一案已由終審法院釐清了,包括5個元素:

(1)a public official;
(2)in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3)wilfully misconducts himself; by act or omission, for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;
(4)without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5)where such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the officeholder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.

(Sin Kam Wah and ano and HKSAR  FACC14/2004 )

冼錦華是高級警務人員,接受免費召妓,是收了甜頭(sweetener),也不是貪污或者包庇甚麽色情場所,而是基於這些妓女是由林春葉非法操控的,冼錦華對此置若罔聞,還接受招待,無疑是使警隊蒙羞的行為。定罪的基楚在判詞第47及48段簡述了:

The scope of misconduct in public office
47.  As it was argued in the courts below that the conduct complained of was not in the course of or in relation to the 1st appellant’s public office and was neither culpable nor serious, it is appropriate to say something about these matters.  To constitute the offence of misconduct in public office, wilful misconduct which has a relevant relationship with the defendant’s public office is enough.  Thus, misconduct otherwise than in the performance of the defendant’s public duties may nevertheless have such a relationship with his public office as to bring that office into disrepute, in circumstances where the misconduct is both culpable and serious and not trivial.  In the present case, if the charges as particularized are made out, there can be no doubt that the misconduct had the necessary relationship with the 1st appellant’s public office and that it was culpable and serious because it involved his participation in the acceptance of free sexual services with the knowledge that they were provided by prostitutes over whom the 2nd appellant exercised control, direction or influence, that being a serious criminal offence. 
48.  In order to reach this conclusion, it is unnecessary to call in aid s.21 of the Police Force Ordinance.  This section provides:
“Every police officer shall for the purposes of this Ordinance be deemed to be always on duty when required to act as such and shall perform the duties and exercise the powers granted to him under this Ordinance or any other law at any and every place in Hong Kong where he may be doing duty.”
I agree with the interpretation placed upon the section by the Court of Appeal, namely that it deems a police officer to be on duty when circumstances exist requiring him to exercise the powers he has as a police officer, for example, when he observes a crime being committed.  I share the Court of Appeal’s view that the application of this section was not an essential step in the prosecution case. 
把這些元素套用於湯顯明的行為,他貴為廉政專員的時候,負責肅貪倡廉,對酒當歌,猛灌黃湯,用公帑酬酢饋贈,何以履行清水衙門打貪之責,只憑在立法會專責委員會聽到的證供,不就已經足以控告他嗎?建制派可以用較溫和的字眼來譴責他,這是純包庇的無恥行為,最微妙之處是委員會嘗試要求廉署提供刑事調查資料,廉署拒絕了繼而對廉署做法表遺憾。表面看以為議員要查過水落石出,骨子裏是否這樣,我看可能别有圖謀。如果真的在聽證會披露這些資料,最終惹起的法律問題,表面看對湯顯明名譽不利,但萬一刑事起訴,反而有利,因為到時就會有pre-trial publicity的問題,在聽證會披露了的證供,可能對被告不公而不為法庭接納。情況就會像新南威爾斯州ICAC的公開聽證一樣,新州當然更甚,因為被傳召作供的人並無緘默權(right of silence),到了審案時就因為褫奪了這種緘默權使很多貪污證供不能呈堂,被告得以脫罪。

我和湯顯明無仇無怨,但早過審計署十八個月揭發他的醜行,也寫了一大堆批評他的文章,連結在此:

歷來最不適合做廉政專員的湯顯明
廉政專員湯顯明的操守
廉政專員的廢話
湯顯明……審計署遲來的鞭屍
湯顯明黃湯長灌
湯顯明……何只歷來最不適合的廉政專員
廉政專員公署=曾蔭權謀私署
湯顯明出席立法會之黃湯對話
湯顯明的一則笑話
湯顯明——到了結賬的時候










2014年7月9日星期三

辱警和撐警

警民關係好不好,是近年的熱門話題。警察的形象肯定好過八十年代,不論在學歷,專業知識,禮貌和形象,都比以前好。如果以過去一年的調查數據來看,市民對警察的滿意程度又必定差了。最簡單的理由是,示威活動頻盈,警察奉命執法,無可避免與市民直接衝突,一方要堅持權利,一方要履行職責,雙方本身都沒有個人的利益衝突,卻變成制度上的敵人。加上政治團體之間的立埸、訴求及利益的矛盾,也把警察捲了進去,使他們兩面都不討好。辱警的人把警察視作公安,撐警的人並沒有提升警察的威信,他們的做法其實對警察多踹幾腳。

早兩天警察員佐級協會發聲明以「尋釁滋事」等字眼批評七一遊行示威者,是極不智的做法。這大陸慣用,香港人視為等同「莫須有」的詞語,只有缺乏公關技巧的人才會使用。要擺姿態,措辭強硬,也要懂得不要用惹起反感的詞彙,才可以搏取支持,否則便會帶來負面效果。而且,不要胡亂接受別人撐場,撐反變害,就不撐好過。愛字頭那班小丑,無疑比一般上街示威的人聽警察話,不會製造警民衝突,警察對他們就較友善,因為他們基本上都不辱警罵警,因此跟他們親近就大錯特錯了。警察公共關係科和警察協會,在這方面都有策略問題。

林慧思事件引發的撐警活動,到頭來警察真的增加了支持度嗎?抑或是有李偲嫣之流的介入而砸了鍋呢?李偲嫣又來搞撐警日,如果我是警察,我就效法孔夫子避開陽貨的做法,敬而遠之。這女子與其他小人都難養啊!

激進示威者的行動目的,本應是衝著制度來,但每次的結果,矛頭都指向警察,旁生枝節,又是策略上的謬誤。可是,這樣又可以受政治逼害的苦主身分跳出來,表述一番。香港實在瘋得可以。

2014年7月4日星期五

梁美芬志願軍的真正圖謀

梁﹕陳政制意見勿隨便浪費警力
梁美芬倡組志願軍處理群眾運動


【明報專訊】特首梁振英表示,市民在七一遊行的信息清楚,政府會重視。他認為之後的佔領行動「無必要」,又呼籲對政制有意見者不應「隨便浪費警力」。經民聯梁美芬昨建議警隊吸納退休警員,或組成民間「志願軍」處理群眾運動。不過有泛民議員批評,泛民與中央在政改討論上仍在「破冰」階段,形容建議是大搞「紅衛兵」,無助解決政改問題。

指佔領無必要

佔中發起人戴耀廷指出,若港府回應市民對普選的訴求,根本不會發生佔中事件。他又批評,警方在7月2日動用大量警力抬走和平集會的學聯成員,才是浪費警力。

梁振英昨回應警方人手問題上,港府會大力配合警方的需要,但他同時亦希望對社會問題,包括對政制問題有意見的人,不要隨便浪費警力。

經民聯梁美芬昨表示,近日不少警員向她說,希望把精力留在緝毒、除暴安良等範疇,而不是處理集會等事宜。她建議警隊吸納退休警員,或組成民間「志願軍」處理群眾運動。她事前沒有向保安局及警方討論建議,但她接觸到不少退休警員、輔警及民安隊成員也向她表示有意「幫手」,反應不俗,她會再約見有關部門跟進。

根據香港法例第197章《基要服務團條例》 ,特首可招募和維持基要服務團團員於被動員作現役服務時,在保持安寧、防止罪行、拘捕犯罪者及所有其他目的方面具有與警隊成員相同的權力,和具有與警隊成員相同的特權、保障及豁免權。警隊中人認為,有關條例可行。

涂謹申﹕志願軍建議不可行

不過,民主黨涂謹申認為建議並不可行。他解釋,《基要服務團條例》在50年代成立。由於當年警力不足,故引用例授權新界村長等人拘捕疑犯,再交給警方處理,至少有數十年沒有再引用。他認為,目前警方已有千計輔警支援,政府亦沒理由另招「志願軍」,斥提議是耍小聰明。

過往港府曾透過《基要服務團條例》成立「醫療輔助隊」及「民衆安全服務隊」,不過之後政府已修訂法例,轉用《醫療輔助隊條例》、《民眾安全服務隊規例》規範有關團體的職務。

(4/7/2014)

再談施君龍餵狗一文的留言,已有法律界朋友質疑梁美芬志願軍建議的法理依據,大家不要被她矇蔽,她居心叵測,不要浪費時間去討論志願軍,及有可能立法賦予權力的根源條例,那全是幌子,掩眼法而已,梁美芬骨子裏另有圖謀,容我道來。

法例197章似乎講到可以成立服務團授以權力維持治安,拘捕罪犯,那只是條文表面字眼,毫無實際効力,請問除了警察、海關、入境處、廉署,甚或包括食環,有甚麽其他按197章附表指明的服務團有拘捕的權力?故此要設立志願軍就必須通過立法程序,立法賦予他們執法權力是開玩笑又無腦的想法,萬一金毛公仔佬參加志願軍,執勤時打人及胡亂拘捕,請問怎樣解決法律後果?這志願軍想法,只是法律無知的教授才想得出,講出口也不怕害羞!當然不怕,不是因為她慣了講白癡的話,而是她另有圖謀。

假設真的為成立志願軍而立法,在立法會拉布討論到拉柴也立不到法,就算不拉柴,未立到法已佔完中了,所以這是在實際執行的層面不可行的另一理由。

那麽梁美芬真的蠢到提出這餿主意嗎?當然不會。無可否認,你可以說她法律知識三流,但她政治投機一流。你可知她第一個學位是甚麽?中大政治行政糸。

講法律,她是豬,講政治,她扮豬。她提出志願軍的建議,其實是她的三部曲:一,警力不足以處理大規模佔中,故此建議——二,成立志願軍幫手維穩,但明知行不通,警察又處理不來,那怎甚麽辦——三,引用《基本法》第18條要求解放軍幫手囉!

黃毓民有掟杯又點?

黃毓民在立法會擲杯,他反問:「有掟又點?」我對這人為民請命的行為,一向都unimpressed,不管他是爛仔、黑社會,抑或是人民英雄,我可以告訴他,他可以被控普通襲擊罪,就是這樣簡單。所以他不要大義凜然。他的行為就是下面這件上訴案類似的案情,其中兩段這樣講:
2. The offences related to an incident in which the appellant threw rocks in the direction of two large dogs owned by a couple who eventually gave evidence in the case as PW3 and PW4. The dogs at the time of the incident were being walked on leashes by PW1 (the victim of the assault offence) who was employed by PW3 and PW4 as their domestic helper at that time.
3. The assault offence arose out of the throwing of rocks in the direction of the dogs by the appellant while they were being walked by PW1 having being found to have constituted an assault on PW1 in the sense that she, although not struck, was thereby put in fear of imminent violence. The criminal damage offence arose as a result of one of the thrown rocks having been found to have struck the nearby parked vehicle of PW2, who otherwise had no involvement in the case.
(HKSAR v Oh Eugene Jae-Hoon HCMA369/2002)

檢控依賴的是鹵莽(recklessness)元素,黃毓民的情況跟案情的犯案意念(mens rea)完全一様。至於某人是否黑社會,我不能亂講,我相信CIB開了file。甚麽叫CIB? Criminal Intelligence Bureau,即刑事情報科。這種檔案以前是用粉紅色皮的Confidential File。裏面紀錄日常與黑社會人物往來的資料和照片,如果無這個file,各位可以水杯掟我。

2014年7月2日星期三

再談施君龍餵狗

上一篇有讀者説我罵施君龍罵到情感崩潰,別開玩笑,我不至於這樣蠢。坦白講,一面寫一面國罵就有。崩潰?為這些豬狗不如的東西的醜行,我啐一口痰,講幾句粗口,都不會崩潰。我也只是國罵,連粗口都無講。甚麽叫國罵?你看這篇去找答案(再論他媽的)。這讀者又指我時常只講法理,不加入感情因素,言下之意,罵施君龍就不講法理,只訴諸感情。我確實認為在談法律的時候,當然要以法理為先,感情極次要,這態度沒有不妥當。不在談法理而在抒發感受時,當然就感性彌漫。我罵施君龍忘本,罵牠而不是在談法治制度,所以無需談法。

在再對上一篇有參加法律界黑衣遊行的朋友,提出律政司應該引用東方日報黃陽午案(有興趣可隨連結看這件案的始末:東方日報藐視法庭案)來對付這些辱罵法官的人,處以藐視法庭罪。當然,相對於東方當年的藐視恐嚇性質,傅振中、施君龍這些隨口胡謅的話,只屬小巫見大巫。加上言論的政治敏感性質,袁國强那有律政司應有的膽量去動這兩隻畜牲的毫毛,要動就老早動了愛字頭的小丑。(我以前寫過這一篇:愛字頭炒法官魷魚!)

對著這些畜牲,還有甚麽可以做,也唯有把牠們都拿去餵狗。

2014年7月1日星期二

施君龍餵狗

我是看了上一篇的留言,才知道施君龍講了這些豬狗不如的話,應該拿他去餵狗。罵人到這程度,不可謂不惡毒,對這條狗,我惡毒。先看他做甚麽:

傅振中及施君龍等人6.27在高等法院外抗議黑衣遊行, 施君龍則與數人拿着印有「法官不愛國不愛港那你愛誰...堅決打倒法律界走狗、鏟除法律界漢奸」的橫額到場「挑機」。比金毛的閙劇, 令人怒不可遏. KKC

可能有傳媒報導過施君龍的故事,我比一般人記憶深刻,因為他在入境處縱火,燒死入境處高級入境主任梁錦光(King Sir),我在西區的時候也見過梁錦光幾次,當年全港的入境處案件只上西區,梁錦光在入境處檢控科工作。如果香港法官像施君龍期望那種大陸法官的思維,他今天就會在赤柱服刑,終生坐牢。如果這縦火案發生在大陸,他的家人在十多年前已經為他行刑那粒子彈付了款,他今天還有開口的機會嗎?這種忘本的東西,不知道因為有香港這種獨立的司法制度,才饒了他連狗也不如的命,還敢出來做赧顏無恥的事,不拿他去餵狗,還可以啥?至於傅振中之流,就是魯迅在1913年2月8日,在日記中所寫,「季世人性,都如野狗,可嘆!」那種野狗。甚麽叫季世,末世也。這兩個東西最佳處理辦法就是,餵傅振中吃施君龍,然後把傅振中賣去大陸的狗肉市場,宰了牠,可除兩害。

施君龍案終審法院判辭連結在此http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=43429&currpage=T