2016年9月27日星期二

以胸襲警上訴終院

律師馬鹿(化名, aka Maro)告訴我以胸襲警案要上訴到終審法院, Wow, 我原先以為這件案已蓋棺無得再寫, 殊不知又有新發展。以甚麼理由去上訴呢? 暫時未有分曉。先要讚馬老大幾句, 他以前曾經給我狠罵, 很不客氣地罵(佢條友鬧我一樣咁勁), 他夠器量, 我比他小器得多, 他不念舊惡, 改名換姓後時常以第一身把庭上所見及他所知告訴我, 這一次是他通知我我才知道。上訴到終審法院只有兩個理由, 主要的理由是案件涉及「法律論點」一環(point of law limb), 法律論點即是要「涉及具有重大而廣泛的重要性的法律論點」(法例第484章《終審法院條例》第32條), 次要的理由是「顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況」, 這兩環(limbs)的重要性並不一樣, 終審法院主要考慮法律論點而非案情事實, 所以用不同環節申請, 程序有點不同。終審法院第一宗刑事案上訴就定出程序來。在曾亮新 訴 香港特別行政區一案(ZENG LIANG XIN and HKSAR FAMC 1/1997), 判辭第34段列出有關程序:
34. It may assist if we set out the position resulting from this construction:
(1) Where an applicant relies on only the "point of law" limb, he should apply to the lower court for the certificate. If granted by the lower court, he should then apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave. If declined by the lower court, he then applies to the Court of Final Appeal for the certificate and for leave.
(2) Where an applicant relies on only the "substantial and grave injustice" limb, he must apply straight to the Court of Final Appeal for leave. The application is not one for any certificate.
(3) Where an applicant wishes to rely on both limbs:
(a) He should apply to the lower court for the certificate for the "point of law" limb.
(b) If granted, he should then apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave (i) on the basis of the certificate and (ii) raising the "substantial and grave injustice" limb. The Appeal Committee will then decide whether to grant leave and, if so, whether on both limbs or one of them.
(c) If the lower court refuses to grant the certificate, then the applicant should apply to the Court of Final Appeal (i) for a certificate for the "point of law" limb and (ii) for leave on the basis of firstly the certificate (if granted) and secondly, the "substantial and grave injustice" limb. The Court can then decide on whether to grant leave and, if leave is granted, whether on both limbs or one of them.
馬鹿在上一篇留言提及:

Ds would need to overcome the first hurdle 

ie Rule 7 CFA Rules 

《香港終審法院規則》第7條這樣寫:

章:484A PDF標題:《香港終審法院規則》憲報編號:L.N. 384 of 1997
條:7條文標題:並無顯示合理的上訴理由的、瑣屑無聊的或不符合本規則的申請版本日期:01/07/1997

(1) 凡司法常務官應答辯人的申請而認為或自行認為某項申請並無顯示合理的給予上訴許可的理由,或是瑣屑無聊或不符合本規則的,則他可向申請人發出傳票,傳召他在上訴委員會席前提出為何不應駁回其申請的因由。
(2) 上訴委員會在考慮有關事項後,可命令駁回申請或發出在案中秉持公正所需的其他指示。

他所指第一關要過的是上列規則這一關, 言下之意上訴理由是「顯示曾有實質及嚴重的不公平情況」的一環, 若涉及「法律論點」一環, 第一關要過的是聽審上訴的張慧玲法官這一關, 因為要向她申請證明書(certificate), 然後才可向終院申請上訴許可。申請上訴的實際論據我沒有本事估, 要頒佈判辭時才可看到。這樣高深的東西我都唔識估喇, 我只知道街就唔使掃住, 要等司法程序完結後才知有沒有需要履行社會服務令。當然有人會覺得唔使坐監改判掃街或感化咁便宜仲去上訴, 豈有此理, 這就是我們可以炫耀的法治, 權利保障充足, 公正開明。

曾經有條友留言大讚大陸的法治好, 佢驚我無命睇到, 話如果我未死, 十年八年後會超越香港, 我誇下海口, 相約二十八年後華山論劍, 畀夠廿八年佢超英趕美, 睇下佢在法治方面有無咁把炮可以將香港比下去。我自己就注意飲食健康, 強身健體, 確保廿八年後有命印證。我為何要扯這東西來講呢? 喺大陸, 若果發生這種事, 打你一鑊之後你認罪並會講服從判罰不會上訴, 仲有得上訴完又上訴? 咪身在福中不知福喇!

41 則留言:

  1. 標少,想請教下,假設佢地可以上訴到終審法院,有冇可能個官否決上訴(先唔理上訴人有咩原因) 但覺得個判刑過低而加重刑罰架?謝謝。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 上面引用的案例已講了, 如果聽上訴的張慧玲法官不批出證明書, 被告可以直接向終院申請上訴許可(判辭34(3)(c)段), 無論終院的上訴怎樣發展, 張慧玲法官已無權再改判刑, 除非被告違反了她判處的社會服務令或感化令。理論上在張慧玲法官判令這次判刑上訴得直之後, 律政司不服的話, 可以向上訴庭申請判刑覆核刑期, 然後才去終院。我之前講過, 律政司不會這樣做, 因為沒有勝算, 本案也並非值得這樣做的案。

      刪除
    2. 即係話人人都可以上訴到終審?不論上訴庭批唔批上訴許可?
      還是不批上訴許可就表示俾被告知再上訴,輸的機會好大?
      睇黎黄之瘋之前單案,只要李柱銘力撐,都肯定要終審庭見。。。

      刪除
    3. 不是每件刑事案都可以上訴至終院, 上到終院不批許可咪玩完囉, 因為無論如何都要先獲終院上訴許可才能正審上訴。批不批要看merits. 而且, 上終院律師費好貴, 除非有人義助, 唔係話上就上。

      刪除
    4. 有李X銘,上終院無問題啦...

      刪除
  2. 大陸的法律“寫”得好我有聽過,大陸法“治”好,就第一次聽,就算的左仔朋友講大陸咩好都無人敢講大陸“法治”好,既然係好,點解十年八年後先超越香港呢?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有空我會找那留言出來共賞。

      刪除
    2. 大陸“法治”既然咁好,更唔明點解唔比維權律師夏霖答辯就可以判刑。

      刪除
    3. 這些真是自古以來也有,中共只不過是延續而已。
      無法預測二十八年後,而且城鄉、南北必有差別。

      刪除
    4. 如果我話"美國法治制度好",相信標少不會反對。。。
      但佢地都有政治犯未審即去關塔那摩灣啦。。。
      牵涉政治的罪行,就算法治制度幾咁好也有例外。。。

      刪除
    5. 從這角度看香港比美國好, 香港不會容許關塔那摩灣的存在, 終院會判關塔那摩灣非法存在。

      刪除
    6. 找了很久, 終於找到: 「法院的挑戰」, 今年6月12日寫的, 28年後再比拼。

      刪除
    7. 香港無兵權,自然唔會有關塔那摩灣的存在...

      但當果班勇武友成功令香港"獨立"果陣,恐怕佢地會響大浪西灣整個監獄去將異見人仕打壓...

      滿院話非法?到時槍杆子裡出政權啦...

      刪除
  3. 請查清楚,關在關塔那摩灣的並不是美國公民,美國政府才不敢未經公開審訊判國民入獄,中國政府就不同喇。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 中國的是蟻民, 共產黨是天子。

      刪除
    2. 即係話有司法,對別國人就可以當蟻民?甚至可以打別國而不需理由?
      如果係咁,呢種所謂"司法"咪又係另一種霸道?

      刪除
    3. 當一個國家連自己國民都唔放過,進行公開審訊都唔敢,仲有咩資格講司法文明?自己法律寫明都唔跟住做,咁仲算唔算有「法律」?

      什麼是「司法」?連基本概念都未攪得清楚就無謂討論落去。

      刪除
    4. 當一個國家連自己國民都唔放過,進行公開審訊都唔敢,仲有咩資格講司法文明?<<你指美國佬對司洛登的態度?

      睇黎響你眼中,美國都唔算有司法...

      刪除
    5. 斯洛登有無係美國不被起訴便被收監?睇種係你腦海仍然未攪清楚基本概念。



      刪除
  4. Bill Siu, another judgment concerning your favourite counsel: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=106061&currpage=T

    But to be fair to him, I don't think M Poon was justified in saying that the Form 86 was too lengthy *for the purpose of the leave application* (it may be frivolous in itself but that's another question). If leave to apply JR is granted, the originating summons (Form 86A) would only say that JR is applied for on the grounds as set out in the Form 86. It is hence perfectly normal for the Form 86A to essentially set out in full the applicants' grounds.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. The name of this counsel is already guilty of something.

      刪除
  5. Lawyer Counsel Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) Convicted and Fined HK$4,000 in Western Magistrates' Court on June 3, 1999

    http://www.scmp.com/article/286231/convicted-lawyer-faces-bar-inquiry

    (South China Morning Post, June 25th, 1999, Alison Smith)

    Convicted Lawyer Faces Bar Inquiry

    Barrister Russell Coleman (高浩文大律師) has stepped down from the Bar Council pending an investigation that could lead to disciplinary proceedings.

    Russell Coleman, 36, is under investigation by an independent tribunal after he failed to tell the Bar Association's executive committee of his conviction this month for a criminal offence.

    Association Chairman Senior Counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC said yesterday he was 'a little upset' after learning of the barrister's conviction by reading about it in the South China Morning Post.

    'He told me he was naturally a little embarrassed to reveal the matter to me . . . He thought the conviction wouldn't attract media attention,' Mr Tong said.

    Mr Coleman is among nine elected members of the Bar Council - the body appointed to uphold standards of professional conduct and discipline among barristers.

    He confirmed last night that he had not offered to resign but had agreed to step down while the investigation takes place.

    'As you know, I have agreed pending the usual processes, not to take part in Bar Council and subcommittee deliberations,' he said.

    Senior Counsel Ronny Tong SC said Russell Coleman only offered to step down after he broached the matter outside the last meeting of the executive committee.

    'I learned on the morning of the Friday and I was a little bit unprepared. When it was revealed in the SCMP, the name was Langley Coleman and I was frantically trying to get hold of him to find out what the position was,' he said. 'I think he quite naively thought the matter wouldn't attract attention.' Mr Coleman was fined $4,000 in Western Court on June 3 for helping his domestic helper work as a caretaker - an offence under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and Immigration Ordinance.

    => Bill Siu, do you know why Russell Coleman SC was just fined? I thought even back in 1999, the standard sentence for AABOC was 2 months' immediate imprisonment on a plea of guilty?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Sorry, it was too long ago. I have no recollection.

      刪除
    2. He hadnt made silk then. but granted he is very persuasive in court. an excellent civil advocate.

      馬鹿

      刪除
  6. 我有一個疑惑,新聞話襲警等條例不能判援刑,所以唯有改判服務令。
    但不能判援刑,由常理去看,不就是認為不能輕判嗎?
    為什麼可以改判更輕的服務令。
    那個不能判援刑的指引究竟寫來有什麼用。

    回覆刪除
  7. 就有與內地公安合作過處理跨境案的香港警察說
    大陸公安拘捕犯人要罪刑確鑿,所以一拘捕就直接扣留至上法庭
    所以唔會好似香港咁,查咗少少就拉人,然後放人出去擔保又擔保,俾疑犯玩乜野踢保拒保
    我自己沒有接觸,但北上廣等一線城市“法治”應該是還可以的,只要不接觸政治問題

    另外就是讀BBA時,某律師阿Sir交商法時所說,大陸法庭在商業審訊上是有國際水準的,因為要同國際接軌,一個高水準的商業審訊對搵錢很重要

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 都係果句啦:當官司涉及政治問題,話之係邊個國家丫,都一樣會政治處理...

      李波事件離譜?那麼拉登直頭被美軍打死咪仲離譜?

      刪除
    2. 李波有發動恐怖襲擊咩?你不如講,兩國打仗殺死敵軍都係唔啦。

      刪除
  8. 第一上訴人朱家言, 第二上訴人鄺振駹和第三上訴人吳麗英似乎都係用法援打官司的, 無須擔心律師費, 上訴到終審法院似乎係指定動作

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. D1 乃未成年 請去掉他名字

      馬鹿

      刪除
    2. 這是公開資料, 刊登在法官判詞內
      http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=105516&QS=%2B&TP=JU

      刪除
    3. 對呀, 是張慧玲的問題, 在司法機構上載的判辭刊登的。

      刪除
    4. 法官失職? 藍絲朋友終於找到機會, 可以投訴張官, 要她下台

      刪除
    5. 只是一時疏忽了, 因為件案原本不是在少年法庭處理的。我以前也批評過一宗非禮上訴揭露受害人的名字, 原審時用了X作代號, 上訴判辭引用了原審過程的審訊謄本, 受害人的名字就披露了, 法官不經意地違法, 偶有發生。

      刪除
  9. 疑因政見不同惹爭執 熱血成員涉襲茶客 http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=55714002&category_guid=6996647&category=instant&issue=20160930

    佢地同獨裁者有咩分別?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有啲友可能冷血好啲, 或者輸血更好。

      刪除
    2. 睇黎個官判佢住院令,同襲擊DJ果個傻佬一齊住會好D....

      因為大家都係痴痴呆呆....

      刪除
  10. Hi Bill, what do you think of CY Leung's threat to sue Apple Daily?

    Letter from CY Leung's solicitors to Apple Daily -
    Page 1: http://static.apple.nextmedia.com/images/e-paper/20160929/large/1475148892_d6e7.jpg

    Page 2: http://static.apple.nextmedia.com/images/e-paper/20160929/large/1475148894_fa44.jpg

    Response from CY Leung's solicitors to Apple Daily's news article of today -
    http://www.sfks.com.hk/tc/profile/ournews_details.php?id=240

    Professor Johannes Chan's opinion -
    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20160930/55713303

    Cheers.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Does he enjoy the protection as an individual like everybody else from defamation? The accusation of him accepting bribe is not yet proven and apparently the ICAC is still investigating. Despicable CY Leung may be, is it premature to jump to conclusion?

      刪除