2015年7月16日星期四

非禮案的受害者

今天司法機構上載了這非禮案的上訴判辭,下面幾段描述案情,是典型的人多時在車廂內發的非禮案,拿出來討論是想女士注意一下,先看案情:

13. 案發時間為2014年4月30日星期三上午約8時27分。證人在北角站上車,目的地上環。北角站月台當日有很多人排隊等車,列車到站時所有人一擁而上,即使列車裝不下月台上的乘客,仍然有人要「夾硬」迫上車,證人上車後「轉身都轉唔到」,只剩下頭仍可以作出非常有限度的轉動。

北角前往炮台山

14. 上訴人在北角站開始站在證人右後方,上訴人右上臂貼著證人背部肩胛骨位置,開車不久證人就透過當時穿著的貼身長牛仔褲感覺到有人用手指「撩」她臀部下方,由「右邊開始」,「好似用手指撩緊嘅動作」,「輕輕咁樣撩」,「大致上由下至上咁樣樣」。

15. 證人形容被「撩」的過程如下 :

16. 「持續咗—可能撩幾下,跟住又移一個又撩第二個位,跟住又撩幾下又撩第二個位,咁就持續幾個站之間嘅時間都係咁撩緊」,即是「由北角出發到炮台山、天后到差唔多去到銅鑼灣」。第一次撩持續「幾秒鐘」,「幾下」。證人當時「想盡量縮,亦都有試過想擰轉面望一望,但係都擰唔到,同埋因為好迫,想縮都冇位縮」。

炮台山前往天后

17. 證人然後形容她稍後有機會轉身右望:「後屘開始去到炮台山站、天后站可能有好少人落咗車之後,有可能半個身位左右,我就好格硬咁轉向去我嘅右邊」,「大概有一步左右」。在證人轉身前,上訴人的手臂一直貼著證人背部。

18. 證人這樣形容轉身後她跟上訴人的相對位置:「背對背,但係我嘅右半同佢嘅右半大概係重疊咁樣樣」。

天后前往銅鑼灣

19. 無論如何,在列車從天后前往銅鑼灣期間,證人再次感覺到「好似手指喺度撩緊我臀部嘅下方」,「右邊嘅臀部」,方向「都係大概下至上」,力度「同之前差唔多,都係冇乜特別用力」,持續「好幾秒」,「都係有幾下」。盤問中,證人進一步解釋說,在整個觸碰過程中,「佢撩嘅方向係上上下下,但係其實左中右佢都有撩到囉,佢會有移囉佢隻手係」。

20. 當列車差不多到達銅鑼灣站時,因為乘客靠向另一邊車廂準備落車,證人可以進一步向右轉身,「見到有隻手喺我背後收番去—收走咗」,上訴人的右手「由我嘅臀部收番去佢側邊前面少少嘅位置」。證人的證供似乎是當時她背部與上訴人背部間約有兩寸距離,而上訴人是站得特別近和靠得最近證人的乘客。

21. 上訴人然後用右手輕輕撞了上訴人背脊一下,但上訴人沒有反應。證人於是「成個人都擰轉身對住佢嘅背脊」,當時兩人相隔只數寸,上訴人穿著杏色風褸,比證人略高,左手拿著尼龍質地公事包。

我不是想講北角至金鐘是非禮高危地,我印象中金鐘至旺角的路段才是。寫這一篇是想女士參考一下這女證人的供辭。她對整個發生過程描述得條理清晰,沒有半點含糊之處。一般女士遇上這種事情,都會十分害怕,不知所措,到頭來啞忍了而讓非禮者逃之夭夭。本案的受害人細心記下事發過程,仔細描述對方那隻手作出非禮動作,也合理地解釋並排除意外觸碰的可能性。因為只憑感覺,不是親眼看到,她排除是公事包觸碰到她臀部的可能性的講法是這樣的:

27. 對於證人如何分辨死物與手指,裁判官對證人有關接觸的證供撮要如下:

「6. 控方第一證人堅稱撩撥其臀部的是手指而非死物,因為“它”懂得轉彎,是有關節的。」


不過,這件案也有危險之處,遇著「放官」,可能在原審或上訴時已脫了罪,事關證人的書面供詞以「掃」來形容接觸,但在庭上卻一直用「撩」來形容。聽審上訴的暫委法官游德康(Douglas Yau)接納對此的解釋:

26. 從正常字面來理解,被「掃」和被「撩」的感覺一般來說應該截然不同。「撩」的動作比較細緻、靈活,而「掃」則比較表面、簡單。如果從觸碰是否有可能是意外觸碰的出發點來考慮兩個字眼,本席的看法是「掃」與「撩」的形容可以有舉足輕重的分別。然而,裁判官接納證人解釋,指因為負責錄取口供的女警不懂「撩」字寫法,於是以「掃」字代替,因此在證據價值上沒有實際影響。

我奉勸女上們,一旦遇上非禮到警署錄取口供,一般是由你口講女警筆錄,錄完之後請記住要求喝水,然後上洗手間,之後氣定神閒續個字細心閱讀,任何不準確的描述即時提出改正,才好簽署。否則,遇上「放官」,單憑這兩字意思上的差距,已可視作合理疑點判被告無罪。

有興趣看這篇判辭,連結在此:香港特別行政區 訴 鄧永康   HCMA 751/2014

13 則留言:

  1. 在东区裁判法院的游德康面前打过2场, 都是普通袭击, 都NG. 嘻嘻

    他对我相当的好耐心, 第一场官司同一问题问了4次都没骂我, 也就叹着气提醒我。。。。这已经是第四次了, 同时双眼翻白, 挺好玩的家伙。


    Maro

    回覆刪除
  2. 社民連內務副主席黃浩銘、立法會議員陳偉業、學聯秘書長羅冠聰、學民思潮召集人黃之鋒等四人,去年6月11日在西環中聯辦外的集會上點火焚燒道具《白皮書》,事隔一年四人被控阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員罪,案件今早提堂。

    黃浩銘及羅冠聰各面對一項控罪,至於陳偉業及黃之鋒則各面對兩項。控罪指他們分別故意阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員,即警長何國柱及警員黎健文。四名被告皆否認控罪。

    裁判官質疑控方為何在案發後一年才檢控,直言被告或有可能以延遲造成不公為由申請終止聆訊。控方回應指警方調查及分析證據需時,亦要等候法律指示;控方又謂將呈上錄影片段作證據。案件押後至下月28日預審。示威者今早在庭外再次焚燒白皮書。
    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150717/53982577

    當我看到裁判官質疑延誤檢控時想起阻差辦公罪最高只是判兩年,但卻是either way offence,以致不受6個月檢控期限所限。其實立法的時候如何決定哪種mode of trial的呢?對於不會判多過2年的罪名,除了檢控期限的考慮外,還有甚麼原因需要列為either way呢?

    回覆刪除
  3. 標少,你好!我有一個關於criminal conviction 問題想問下你, 希望你可以抽小小時間睇睇. 感激萬分!
    大約係7年前,我係PCCW做summer job 係做sales. 即係果d係街擺檔又有易拉架果d。有一日比食環票控,咁我就書面認罪啦。大概罰左幾百蚊咁上下啦,其實我都已經完全忘記左呢d事。直到最近要申請入專業團體,要填表證明我係一個fit and proper person.
    其中一條問題係我有冇convicted in court 咁樣。我應該點樣填好?
    我為左呢件事走左去警察總部crb 查下個conviction係咩,但佢地又好很定話我冇conviction. 如果我填冇 我驚佢地會去法庭查 然後話我withhold information. 如果填有(其實我知咁樣已經係convicted in court) 我連個charge,conviction date ,conviction court都完全唔知。 又好驚個conviction會影響到到我個application.

    唉 我真係好擔心 飯都食唔落。我辛苦左好耐努力左好多年先等到今日 而家可能因為7年前一個暑假工搞到咩都冇哂。其實有冇咩途徑比我查到當年個conviction 係咩?
    謝謝你

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20150717/53983622 是不是這條「未獲准許展示海報」?

      刪除
    2. 應該唔係。應該係類似小販阻街果D

      刪除
  4. What do you think about P K Chan's Verdict? A woman assaulting the police with her breast (do you know of any woman on Earth who would assault a police officer with her breast)? Even Time Magazine reported the joke.

    http://time.com/3962142/hong-kong-woman-police-breast-assault/?xid=fbshare

    A Hong Kong Woman Just Got Convicted of Assaulting a Police Officer With Her Breast

    The extent of the officer's physical injuries was not revealed

    A court in Hong Kong Kong convicted 30-year-old Ng Lai-ying Thursday of assaulting a police officer by hitting him with her breast during a protest on March 1.

    Ng testified that during the protest the officer had reached out his arm to grasp the strap of her bag and that his hand had come in contact with her upper left breast, the South China Morning Post reports.

    She told the court that she immediately yelled, “Indecent assault!”

    But in his decision, the magistrate rejected those allegations, accusing Ng of lying in her testimony and instead finding her guilty of using her breast to bump the officer’s arm. “You used your female identity to trump up the allegation that the officer had molested you. This is a malicious act,” he said.

    There was no word on what physical injuries, if any, the officer suffered.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I wonder if the decision would be different if the magistrate is a female.

      刪除
    2. I wonder if the decision would be different if the allegation was the other way round - e.g. a female police officer allegedly assaulted a male occupy central protestor with her breast. Would anyone have believed that the female police officer was telling the truth?

      刪除
    3. Who knows. We have seen a lot of acquittals these days when the police were the only prosecution witnesses. Have an open mind.

      刪除
    4. Joke it says, joke maybe. Woman's breast can be a lethal weapon. Michael Chan has made a factual finding. He is perfectly entitled to do. Who on earth would use her breast to assault another person? What about 林依麗?


      刪除
  5. Maro,

    I have deleted your latest comment. From now on, I will delete each and every comment you leave in this blog. You either change your language or change your name if you want to leave any comment at all. This is my rule, my game and my turf, not appellable. Ciao.

    回覆刪除
  6. Hi Bill, really great to see you are acting in the genuine American way, good on you.

    "This is my rule, my game and my turf, not appellable." - how nicely put - wish we Chinese and the PRC can one day tell the same to the gwailos.

    BTW - I hope you won't delete my comment.

    Kind regards

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Only when the mad dog is infected with rabies, I will put a muzzle on it.

      刪除